Connect with us

Published

on

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.

More on Westminster Accounts

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.

The Westminster Accounts is a collaboration between Sky News and Tortoise Media

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.

explore

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.

Continue Reading

UK

MasterChef presenter John Torode sacked

Published

on

By

MasterChef presenter John Torode sacked

MasterChef presenter John Torode will no longer work on the show after an allegation he used an “extremely offensive racist term” was upheld, the BBC has said.

His co-host Gregg Wallace was also sacked last week after claims of inappropriate behaviour.

On Monday, Torode said an allegation he used racist language was upheld in a report into the behaviour of Wallace. The report found more than half of 83 allegations against Wallace were substantiated.

Torode, 59, insisted he had “absolutely no recollection” of the alleged incident involving him and he “did not believe that it happened,” adding “racial language is wholly unacceptable in any environment”.

John Torode and Gregg Wallace in 2008. Pic:PA
Image:
John Torode and Gregg Wallace in 2008. Pic: PA

In a statement on Tuesday, a BBC spokesperson said the allegation “involves an extremely offensive racist term being used in the workplace”.

The claim was “investigated and substantiated by the independent investigation led by the law firm Lewis Silkin”, they added.

“The BBC takes this upheld finding extremely seriously,” the spokesperson said.

“We will not tolerate racist language of any kind… we told Banijay UK, the makers of MasterChef, that action must be taken.

“John Torode’s contract on MasterChef will not be renewed.”

Australian-born Torode started presenting MasterChef alongside Wallace, 60, in 2005.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why Gregg Wallace says he ‘will not go quietly’

A statement from Banijay UK said it “takes this matter incredibly seriously” and Lewis Silkin “substantiated an accusation of highly offensive racist language against John Torode which occurred in 2018”.

“This matter has been formally discussed with John Torode by Banijay UK, and whilst we note that John says he does not recall the incident, Lewis Silkin have upheld the very serious complaint,” the TV production company added.

“Banijay UK and the BBC are agreed that we will not renew his contract on MasterChef.”

Read more from Sky News:
BBC reveals highest-earning stars
Men who cut down Sycamore Gap tree locked up
Couple murdered two-year-old grandson

Earlier, as the BBC released its annual report, its director-general Tim Davie addressed MasterChef’s future, saying it can survive as it is “much bigger than individuals”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

BBC annual report findings

Speaking to BBC News after Torode was sacked, Mr Davie said a decision is yet to be taken over whether an unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired.

“It’s a difficult one because… those amateur chefs gave a lot to take part – it means a lot, it can be an enormous break if you come through the show,” he added.

“I want to just reflect on that with the team and make a decision, and we’ll communicate that in due course.”

Mr Davie refused to say what the “seriously racist term” Torode was alleged to have used but said: “I certainly think we’ve drawn a line in the sand.”

In 2022, Torode was made an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours, for services to food and charity.

Continue Reading

UK

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses ‘could happen again’

Published

on

By

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses 'could happen again'

An inquiry into the case of a hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses has concluded that “offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again”.

It found that “current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking”.

The first phase of the inquiry found Fuller, 70, was able to offend for 15 years in mortuaries without being suspected or caught due to “serious failings” at the hospitals where he worked.

Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity.

What were Fuller’s crimes?

Fuller was given a whole-life prison term in December 2021 for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, in 1987.

During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of at least 101 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020.

His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year “unnoticed and unchecked” and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours.

‘Inadequate management, governance and processes’

Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan Michael, chair of the inquiry, said: “This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively.

“Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long.”

He said that these “weaknesses” are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from “across the country”.

“I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. – I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation.”

Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to “protect the security and dignity of people after death”.

After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the “security and dignity of the deceased”.

On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as “ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking”.

David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, “unnoticed and unchecked”.

It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen.

His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry – be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England – is that it could easily have happened elsewhere.

The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again.

Continue Reading

UK

MasterChef is ‘bigger than individuals’ and ‘can survive’, BBC says

Published

on

By

MasterChef is 'bigger than individuals' and 'can survive', BBC says

BBC director-general Tim Davie has said MasterChef can survive its current scandal as it is “much bigger than individuals” – but the corporation must “make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show”.

On Monday, it was revealed an independent review into “inappropriate behaviour” by MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace had upheld more than half of the allegations against him.

A few hours later, Wallace’s former MasterChef co-presenter, John Torode, said an allegation he used “racial language” was upheld in the report as part of a review.

After the report was published, Wallace, 60, said he was “deeply sorry” for causing any distress, and never set out to “harm or humiliate”.

Torode, 59, said he had “no recollection of the incident” and said he “did not believe that it happened,” and said he was “shocked and saddened by the allegation”.

Mr Davie said the BBC’s leadership team would not “tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values,” while BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledged there were still pockets within the broadcaster where “powerful individuals” can still “make life for their colleagues unbearable”.

They said several BBC staff members had been dismissed in the last three months, following an independent review into workplace culture.

More on Bbc

Wallace, who was sacked from MasterChef last week, is not included in that count as he was not directly contracted by the corporation, but employed by independent production company Banijay.

The corporation has yet to decide if the unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired or not.

BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA
Image:
BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA

News of the findings in the Gregg Wallace report came just hours before the BBC was deemed to have breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official.

Media watchdog Ofcom subsequently launched its own investigation into the programme.

While the 2024-25 annual report showed a small rise in trust overall for the corporation, Mr Davie acknowledged it had been a year which saw the reputation of the BBC damaged by “serious failings” in the making of the documentary.

The BBC boss acknowledged: “It was important that the BBC took full responsibility for those failings and apologised for them,” and later in response to a question, called the documentary – Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone – “the most challenging editorial issue I’ve had to deal with”.

He went on: “The importance of fair balance reporting, the need for high-quality homegrown programming in the face of massive pressure, I think has never, ever been greater. And I believe my leadership and the team I’ve assembled can really help the BBC thrive in that environment and very competitive environment.”

BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA
Image:
BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA

BBC boss has chair’s ‘full support’

Despite a series of failings in recent months – including livestreaming the controversial Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury last month – Mr Davie insisted he can “lead” the organisation in the right direction.

When asked if he would resign, he replied: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“We will make mistakes, but I think as a leadership and myself, I’ve been very clear, and I think we have been decisive.”

He said the organisation was setting a “global standard” for media.

Mr Shah, reiterated his support for Mr Davie.

“Tim Davie and his team, and Tim in particular, has shown very strong leadership throughout all this period and he has my full support.”

The report also revealed its top earners, which saw former Match Of The Day host Gary Lineker top the chart once again.

Meanwhile, Australian children’s cartoon Bluey proved a boon for the broadcaster, and was the most watched show in the US across all genres – with 55 billion minutes viewed.

The top 10 shows watched over Christmas 2024 were also all from the BBC.

Recent annual reviews have been overshadowed by the Huw Edwards scandal and allegations of a toxic environment around flagship show Strictly Come Dancing.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Trending