Tag: investigation

SHAMEFUL!

Family ‘repeatedly benefitted’ from ‘mismanaged’ Captain Tom Foundation, investigation finds

The Charity Commission’s investigation into The Captain Tom Foundation has found repeated instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement by the family of the late fundraiser, who set up the charity in his name.  

The official report, published today, is highly critical of the conduct and actions of the charity’s former trustee and CEO (Hannah Ingram-Moore) and a former trustee (Colin Ingram-Moore). 

It sets out evidence of serious failings in the charity’s management, including failures to act solely in the best interests of the charity and to effectively identify and manage conflicts of interest. 

The report finds that Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore, who are now disqualified from serving as charity trustees, are responsible for a “pattern of behaviour” which saw them repeatedly benefitting personally from their involvement in the charity.

The failure to manage conflicts of interest arising from Mr and Mrs Ingram Moore’s link to each other and the charity’s links to their private companies happened repeatedly and led to direct and indirect private benefit for the family.  

The report is also critical of the charity’s unconflicted trustees, who it finds did not always have sufficient oversight and control of the administration of the charity. However, the inquiry notes that their ability to manage conflicts of interest was limited by the failure of the Ingram-Moores to inform them of potential conflicts of interest as these arose.

The report concludes the non-conflicted trustees are responsible for mismanagement but that this did not warrant any further regulatory action. 

Scope of the inquiry

The regulator’s inquiry was opened in June 2021 to examine if trustees had been responsible for misconduct and / or mismanagement and if the charity suffered any financial loss, including private benefit to any current or former trustees. It also considered if conflicts of interest were adequately managed and if all trustees complied with and fulfilled their responsibilities under charity law.  

Findings of the inquiry  

The inquiry examined a range of concerns in detail, assessing the extent to which trustees complied with their legal duties. The report is critical of: 

  • The Ingram-Moores’ handling of and public communications about publishing deals for books authored by the late Captain Sir Tom. The inquiry concludes that the public “would understandably feel misled” to learn that sales of his autobiography ‘Tomorrow will be a good day’ have not benefited the charity, given that statements were made which implied donations from sales would be made to the charity carrying his name.  
  • Public statements made by Mrs Ingram-Moore regarding her involvement in setting her salary for the role. The inquiry concludes that it might have been technically accurate for her to state that she was “not offered” a “six figure salary”, as the Commission blocked the initial salary request, and no formal offer was made to her prior to the regulator’s authorisation of a lower salary. However, the inquiry finds these assertions were disingenuous, as it saw written evidence that she had stated, prior to starting in the role, that her expectations were for a £150k remuneration package.  
  • Mrs Ingram-Moore retaining £18,000 for judging and presenting an award named after Captain Tom. While she claims she undertook the engagement in a personal capacity, the inquiry does not agree and found no evidence that supports her position. Mrs Ingram-Moore committed the charity’s resources to the event without the non-conflicted trustees’ knowledge or consent. 
  • The handling of intellectual property rights owned by the Ingram-Moore family but offered to the charity for its use without appropriate agreements in place, which led to confusion and possible financial losses to the charity. 
  • The Ingram-Moores’ use of the charity’s name in an original planning application for a building constructed on their private land, which also implied the building would be used by the charity. They did not inform or seek consent from the unconflicted trustees before using the charity’s name for this purpose. The building was subsequently demolished by order of the local authority. The inquiry finds that the couple used the charity’s name inappropriately for private benefit, and that this amounted to misconduct and/ or mismanagement.  

The above matters are examples drawn from the inquiry report, which sets out the findings and conclusions in full, provides wider context and background, and includes lessons for other charities to learn from this case.   

Regulatory action taken 

In June 2024, the Commission disqualified Hannah and Colin Ingram-Moore from being a trustee and from holding a senior management position at any charity for a period of 10 and 8 years respectively.  

Throughout the investigation, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s information gathering powers to obtain information to inform the inquiry’s findings and conclusions as set out in the report. 

David Holdsworth, CEO of the Charity Commission, said:  “Captain Sir Tom inspired a nation and reminded us what service to others can achieve even in the most challenging of times.

“His determined fundraising efforts, and the incredibly generous public response, brought a smile and hope to many of us during the pandemic. We should remember his achievements and how grateful NHS Charities Together is for the £39m he raised for the causes they support.

“Sadly, however, the charity set up in his name has not lived up to that legacy of others before self, which is central to charity. Our inquiry report details repeated failures of governance and integrity.  

“The public – and the law – rightly expect those involved in charities to make an unambiguous distinction between their personal interests, and those of the charity and the beneficiaries they are there to serve. This did not happen in the case of The Captain Tom Foundation. We found repeated instances of a blurring of boundaries between private and charitable interests, with Mr and Mrs Ingram-Moore receiving significant personal benefit. Together the failings amount to misconduct and / or mismanagement.   

“The Commission conducts all its investigations in a fair, balanced and independent way, led by the law and the facts alone. Where those investigations find that individuals have misused the trust that people have in charities, it is right that we take firm action to hold them to account.” 

Reflecting on the role of charity in society more generally, Orlando Fraser, Chair of the Charity Commission, said: “Charities represent the best of society – bringing people together, supporting the most vulnerable, and strengthening communities.

“It is important to remember that their work is underpinned by trustees, most of whom are volunteers, and most of whom fulfil the role with passion and integrity.”

THE last post on the charity’s website states:

Update – July 2023

At this moment in time, the sole focus of The Captain Tom Foundation is to ensure that it cooperates fully with the on-going Statutory Inquiry by the Charity Commission. 

As a result, The Captain Tom Foundation is not presently actively seeking any funding from donors.  Accordingly, we have also taken the decision to close all payment channels whilst the Statutory Inquiry remains open. 

Once the findings of the Statutory Inquiry have been communicated, The Captain Tom Foundation will be in a better position to make a decision in relation to its future, but for now, our main priority is to assist the Charity Commission with its enquiry. 

In the meantime, on behalf of the trustees of The Captain Tom Foundation, we wish to extend a warm thank-you to all our supporters who have enabled us to help charities that were close to Captain Sir Tom’s heart. 

Vets Market Investigation update 

A speech delivered by Martin Coleman, Inquiry Chair for the CMA’s market investigation into veterinary services for household pets at the BVA Congress at the London Vet Show:

Introduction

As an owner of cats and dogs for many years – I currently have a very energetic Sprocker spaniel – I have great respect for veterinary professionals and the care they give, sometimes in very pressured and emotive circumstances. Nothing we have seen or heard in our inquiry so far has caused me to have doubts about the care and professionalism of the vast majority of veterinary professionals.

The focus of our inquiry is not on that but on how veterinary services for pets are bought and sold – whether there are aspects of that process, or the market structure itself, that are not working as well as they might to provide competitive services to consumers

Competition and animal welfare

And competition is important, not only to ensure that clients get good services at fair prices, but to the animals whose health and welfare is rightly at the heart of veterinary practice. In a service that is, in the main, commercially operated, the welfare of animals is closely connected to the means of owners to pay for diagnostics, medicines and treatments. To state the obvious, the health and welfare of animals cannot be effectively protected if owners are unable to meet the costs of doing so. Competitive markets keep prices down and, importantly, incentivise investment and innovation in different treatments and business models. There is a clear connection between protecting the health and welfare of animals and seeking to ensure that markets for veterinary services are working well.

This connection between effective competition and the ability of patients to access clinical services and medicines is perhaps less apparent in the UK than in some other countries because human medical services, for most patients, are available without charge and NHS medicines are provided at standardised prices and, in some cases, free. So clients have no point of comparison when faced with the price of veterinary services and vets have less external context to judge the role of competition in a clinical setting

Context of the investigation

While the provision of veterinary services has, in large part, always been a business, recent developments including increased corporate ownership of vet practices, price rises and questions about the nature and extent of treatments offered have raised questions about whether competition is working as effectively as it might to help contain costs, improve quality and encourage innovation in the interests of consumers and the animals that they own. This was the context in which our market investigation was set up.

We have yet to determine whether such concerns are justified. And, even if they are, we shall seek to understand whether they may be connected. As all good scientists know, correlation is not the same as causation.

There might for example be a causal link between increased corporate ownership and price increases but equally the two may not be connected and there may be other factors at play including a reduction in the number of vets following Brexit and the increase in pet ownership in recent years.

Changes in the nature and intensity of treatment may be an indication of new commercial profit-maximising strategies but may, for example, reflect developments in technology and changing pet owner perceptions of what is best for their animals.

Our job is to get to the bottom of how the market is working – allegations are one thing, hard evidence is another and we are interested in the evidence.

The process

We are now almost a third of the way through our market investigation. Although we have not been able to say much publicly yet, because we are assessing the evidence and forming our views, we have been very busy. It is a long process because we take the responsibility of exploring the veterinary sector very seriously, and we want to base any action we take – or recommendations we make – on a thorough look at the evidence, allowing enough time to engage with key stakeholders including, of course, the veterinary profession.

We have therefore invested a lot of time in engaging with the profession and its clients to get a full picture of how the sector works. We have held teach ins with, and been on site visits to, each of the large corporate groups, as well as site visits at independently owned practices. We have had the chance to talk formally and informally with senior executives and the people on the ground and with representative bodies.

We have held roundtables with veterinary professionals from different backgrounds including the heads of vet schools, chief veterinary officers at charities, vet nurses, students and newly established vets. We have had discussions with consumer groups, animal charities and regulators.

These have been hugely valuable in giving us an understanding of the challenges facing the sector, the complexities of professional life and business, the experience of consumers and the possibilities for change. Thanks to all who have been part of that process. This engagement will continue as we progress the investigation and in particular will include discussions on any remedies we consider may be appropriate to address any concerns we identify.

Gathering evidence, and then analysing it properly and fairly, takes time – particularly in a complex professional setting.

We have requested information from vet businesses (small and large), including on profitability and business strategies.

We are looking at data on prices charged and treatments bought.

We are mapping all the vet practices in the UK and who owns them for every local area. We have commissioned research – both interviews with veterinary professionals and a survey of pet owners.

We are seeking to understand how the medicine supply chain impacts consumer prices.

We are reviewing the relationships between first opinion practices and referral services and out of hours services and how this may impact consumers.

Later in the process we shall be holding a number of formal hearings.

We are very aware that this is an area of some complexity, and we shall need to assess all the potential consequences of any interventions we are considering We shall consider how far potential remedies are aligned with our statutory responsibilities, workable for the profession and its clients and contribute to the outcome that we all want – a market where competition works well with consumers getting a choice of good quality services at fair prices and providers receiving an appropriate return for their investment and service.

This is why we place such importance in our process on hearing your views and consulting with the sector, the profession and pet owners as we develop any potential remedies.

I know that such a significant investigation creates uncertainty, although I would remind you that the inquiry is in part a response to concerns that have been expressed about veterinary services, not the cause of those concerns. We have not yet reached any conclusions on how well the market is operating; but whether the eventual conclusions are that all is well, or that there are areas of concern which we would seek to address, I would hope that the result will contribute to the further building of confidence in a profession consisting of hard working dedicated and committed practitioners performing important work.

Regulation

One theme common to nearly all we have spoken to, including the RCVS, is that the regulatory system needs reform to better serve the profession and the public. I used to be a practising solicitor and sat as a member of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so I know from my own experience that a well-functioning market in professional services requires regulation.

A race to the bottom is not in the interests of animals, owners or the veterinary profession, and it is the job of regulation to ensure that this does not happen. And changes to regulation might help address some of the challenges faced by the sector, for example by widening the range of procedures that veterinary nurses can be authorised to perform – this is something we shall need to think about.

More broadly it is legitimate to ask whether regulation is too lax or too intrusive; its scope too broad or not wide enough; whether there are more proportionate ways of achieving desired outcomes; whether the current regulatory structure is optimal in protecting public interests and whether the regulatory system gives proper weight to the interrelationship between animal welfare, the needs of consumers and the benefits of a competitive process.

These are issues we are considering and will be taken into account in any recommendations on regulatory reform that we make to the government for them to consider taking forward.

Medicines

An example of the interplay between animal welfare, competition, cost and regulation concerns medicines. We have heard veterinary professionals, and their clients, indicate frustration with certain aspects of the way that medicines are supplied, purchased and regulated.

Some of the important issues around medicines we are considering include:

  • the options available to pet owners when buying animal medicines, and how much they know about these
  • the barriers to telemedicine and remote prescribing, for both vets and pet owners
  • the discounts and other terms available to independent vets and larger vet groups from medicines manufacturers and other suppliers
  • the role of generic prescribing
  • the mark-ups on medicines and whether these mark-ups influence consultation fees charged by vets and, if so, what this might mean for competition

We have heard concerns about the high cost of certain drugs licensed for animals compared to the drugs’ human equivalents and about very large price increases when branded versions of medicines for animals have been authorised. We have been told by some vets that they are frustrated by the lack of flexibility in the Cascade, which, among other things, sets out the circumstances in which a human medicine may be prescribed or recommended for animal use.

These are a particularly acute problems for some pet owners, given recent cost of living pressures and the rising costs of caring for a pet. Vets told us that in some cases – and more than they would like – pet owners are not able to afford the drugs with an animal licence and therefore animals are remaining untreated – or even being euthanised – when they could be treated if vets could prescribe cheaper human medicines but they believe that they are forbidden from doing so.

It is not our job to second guess the clinical, scientific and public health judgments of the specialist regulators. We know that there are good reasons for prescribing medicines specifically manufactured for animal use, such as targeted dosing and the supporting pharmacovigilance regime to ensure continued safety. But it is our role to ask whether the regulatory process gives appropriate consideration to competition and the impact of that on consumers and prices (which may have implications for animal welfare). Albeit the view we ultimately take may be that there are parts of medicines regulation that involve expert judgments, and public policy considerations, that are for specialist regulators and elected government to assess.

And there may be things that can be done to improve matters even before we report. Government policy has been that cost alone is not a sufficient reason to move straight to prescribing a human medicine under the Cascade and we respect that. However, might it, for example, be possible for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the RCVS (who effectively police Cascade use) to work together to give guidance to vets on circumstances where, if a pet owner clearly cannot afford an animal medicine with the consequence that an animal would go untreated, a vet would be safe to prescribe or recommend a cheaper human equivalent in order to protect the health and welfare of the animal?

Informed consumers and treatment intensity

For the market to work well, consumers must be appropriately informed about the choices they can make when selecting a veterinary practice, whether that be a first opinion practice, a referral centre or an out of hours service, and when considering diagnostic options and treatments.

This is not just a matter of cost but also because, in similar circumstances, each owner will have their own views about what is best for their pet, and each vet and practice will have distinct capabilities. We are considering whether the information consumers have at different stages of their animal care journey facilitates good decision-making and how far pet owners are in a position to act on those decisions.

This does not mean that dealings between a vet and client are, or should be, purely transactional. Relationships, trust and confidence matter, and we have heard this consistently from vets and clients. But this is not an either/or debate – appropriately informed consumers making choices versus trusted relationships. The two are connected. Trust can be built and retained if consumers know that their vet, and the recommendations the vet makes, are the best for them in their particular circumstances.

We have heard about the increasing sophistication in diagnostics and treatments. There is a debate around how best to handle the challenge of ensuring that pet owners are properly informed at the right time about the choices available while receiving appropriate guidance and support on sometimes very complex options. One approach that has been much discussed is contextualised care, to tailor what a vet offers to the specific needs of the pet and its owner.

A number of vets have told us that contextualised care is a new term for what good vets have always done. Others have said that it is a valuable new focus for good practice. We have also been told, by vets who work in the charity sector, about pragmatic care, which can be thought of as aiming to capture much of the benefit of the increasingly sophisticated treatments available at a reasonable cost.

We are looking into these trends in diagnostics and treatments and what they mean for competition, pet owners and animal welfare.

Conclusion

What happens next? We’re preparing a series of (what we call) working papers, where we set out the evidence we have gathered so far and our initial analysis of what this shows. These will be published in a few months and will give interested people and businesses a chance to see how our thinking is developing and the opportunity to comment.

We are expecting to publish our provisional conclusions in early summer next year, when we shall be consulting on what we have found and what we are considering doing about it. This might include making orders that are directly binding and recommendations for change which would be for others to consider and implement.

As I said we are very keen to get the views of the profession on the topics we are considering and, in that spirit, I am looking forward to hearing the panel discussion during the second part of this session.

Acceptance of cash to be investigated by Treasury Committee

Westminster’s Treasury Committee is asking for evidence as it examines whether rules are needed to govern the acceptance of physical cash in the UK, ahead of public sessions which could begin in December. 

Though the use of cash has declined over recent years, it remains a vital resource to many, with around 3.1 million people in the UK relying almost entirely on cash as a form of payment. Research indicates that the use of cash can provide a vital lifeline to groups such as those with long term poor health or people at risk of economic abuse. 

The Bank of England has noted that the decline in cash usage is increasing the infrastructure costs of retaining physical cash as a viable payment method, which could lead to disruption for businesses and consumers. 

Others have highlighted the dangers of an overreliance on digital payments, suggesting cash acceptance should be viewed as a form of civil preparedness. There are currently no regulations which require businesses to accept cash.  

Submissions can be made via the Treasury Committee website evidence portal. 

Call for evidence

Evidence submitted to the Committee should seek to answer one or more of the following questions: 

What is the current state of, and recent trends in, physical cash acceptance in the UK? Any forecasts on physical cash acceptance would be welcome.  

  1. Are there groups in society which disproportionately rely on businesses and public services accepting physical cash?
    • What challenges do they face? 
  2. Should the Government require parts of the economy to always accept physical cash?
    • Are there individual sectors of the economy where physical cash acceptance is particularly important, and should be protected?
  3. What are the practical challenges that businesses might face from having to always accept physical cash?
    • How do these challenges differ between large and small businesses?
  4. What would the costs to private firms and the public sector be from any imposed requirements to always accept physical cash?
  5. How might any requirement for certain firms and public services to always accept physical cash affect financial services firms, especially those related to the provision of physical cash?
  6. Are there any other areas or particular sectors where a decline in cash acceptance would cause problems? 

Treasury Committee queries public sector organisations over use of Fujitsu

WESTMINSTER’s Treasury Committee has asked His Majesty’s Treasury, and all associated agencies and public bodies, to send them details of any contracts awarded by their organisation to Fujitsu Services Ltd, or any other Fujitsu Global-owned entities, since 2019.

The international technology corporation has faced renewed questions over its role in the Post Office Horizon Scandal in recent weeks.

The Committee aims to understand the extent to which the company has continued to be awarded government contracts with HM Treasury-affiliated organisations since the High Court ruling in 2019. 

Questions include whether the contracts went through a tendering process, the extent to which the company’s role in the scandal was considered as part of the due diligence process and whether they have considered terminating contracts with the company at any stage. 

Treasury Committee Chair, Harriett Baldwin, said: “The public outcry regarding the Post Office sub-postmaster scandal is entirely justified, and I know I speak for the whole Committee when I express my horror at the injustices the victims faced. 

“It’s clear that Fujitsu has questions to answer over its conduct. I think it’s important we can see the extent to which taxpayer money has been spent with Fujitsu since the High Court ruling as they are simultaneously assessed on their fitness to remain a government supplier.” 

Holyrood Committee announces inquiry into Scotland’s Commissioners

DOES SCOTLAND NEED YET MORE COMMISSIONERS?

A new parliamentary inquiry examining Scotland’s Commissioner ‘landscape’ has been announced.

Holyrood’s Finance and Public Administration Committee will investigate whether a more “coherent and strategic approach” is needed for the creation of any further commissioners.

Scotland currently has seven commissioners directly responsible to Parliament. An eighth – the Patients Safety Commissioner – was agreed by Parliament in September 2023.

A further six commissioners have been proposed, or are being considered, that could potentially bring the total number to 14 by the end of this five-year session of Parliament.

Finance and Public Administration Committee Convener Kenneth Gibson said: “Seven commissioners cost £16.6m, according to budget figures for 2023/24.  Each office comes with its own staff and its own running costs. 

“The smallest cost £0.3m and the largest £6.7m.  More are being proposed, or considered, by both the government and by backbench MSPs.

“Our committee believes this inquiry is both timely and necessary.

“The Scottish Government has already stated there is very little published research on commissioners in Scotland – or the UK – and little evaluation exploring their pros and cons, powers or ways of working.

“Our committee will therefore investigate whether a more coherent and strategic approach is needed for the creation of such commissioners in Scotland.”

The committee will launch a call for views in January. Oral evidence will be taken in March / April. The committee’s report is expected to be published in May / June 2024.

RAAC in NHS Lothian: ‘discovery surveys’ to follow desktop exercise

There have been reports in the media that some buildings in the NHS Estate across Scotland may have been constructed using Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC). This material, which was widely in use between 1960 and 1980, was used mainly for components such as roof and floor planks. It is known to be weaker than other forms of concrete and its use was phased out in the 1990’s.

Work is underway at a national level to check and risk assess all NHS buildings which may potentially contain RAAC.

As part of that work, NHS Lothian has identified those candidate buildings in our Estate and supplied the information to NHS Scotland Assure. We have identified the following buildings as requiring investigation:

• Bonnyrigg Health Centre

• Lauriston Building

• Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion

• Royal Edinburgh Hospital – Cullen/River Centre Extension

• Royal Edinburgh Hospital – Link Corridor/X-Ray

• Stoneyburn Health Centre

• Tranent Medical Practice

• Western General Hospital – Gas Store

It is worth noting that the risk assessment that took place by NHS Scotland Assure was based on a desktop exercise and does not confirm the presence of RAAC within our buildings.

The next stage of the process will be for discovery surveys to be undertaken by an independent contractor appointed by NHS Assure to confirm or rule out the presence of RAAC within our buildings. This is a national process and the surveys are scheduled to be carried out in Lothian in the Autumn.

The output of these surveys will provide further information on any recommended remedial actions. This work is precautionary and not the result of any known issues in any of our buildings.

Inquiry launched into heart disease charity

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into the Have A Heart Foundation 

The regulator of charities has launched an inquiry into the Have A Heart Foundation over serious concerns about its financial management.

The charity was set up in 2013 to raise awareness of and support patients with heart disease. It is based in Cheshire.

Despite engagement and guidance from the Commission, the trustees have failed to file any of the charity’s accounts since 2019.

The Commission is also concerned about the trustees’ financial record-keeping more widely, and the level of charitable expenditure.

It therefore escalated its engagement with the charity to an inquiry on 17 April 2023.

The inquiry will examine:

  • the trustees’ failure to comply with their statutory reporting duties including the timely submission of the charity’s accounts and annual returns to the Commission
  • the extent to which the trustees are complying with their legal duties in respect of their administration, governance and management of the charity, including compliance with the charity’s governing document and whether the charity is operating in line with its objects
  • whether potential conflicts of interest and connected party transactions have been properly managed
  • whether there has been any unauthorised trustee benefit

The Commission may extend the scope of the inquiry if additional regulatory issues emerge.

It is the Commission’s normal policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing the issues examined, any action taken, and the inquiry’s outcomes.

Charity watchdog publishes report on Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain investigation

The Charity Commission has published a report of its long-running inquiry into Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain.

The inquiry opened in May 2014 to investigate the charity’s handling and oversight of safeguarding matters, including child protection advice provided to individual Jehovah’s Witness (JW) congregations.

This followed significant interaction between the Commission and the charity since October 2007, concerning the way in which safeguarding incidents or failures were handled within JW organisations and, specifically, the adequacy of the guidance that the charity provided to various JW congregations.

JW organisations reported to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (‘IICSA’) that a total of 67 allegations of child abuse were made between 2009 and 2019 against 67 individuals involved in JW congregations, whether as Elders, ministerial servants or otherwise.

During the course of the Commission’s interaction with the charity from 2007 onwards, including during the period of the inquiry, JW congregations have revised and updated their safeguarding policies on several occasions, and the Commission remains engaged with JW congregations on safeguarding matters through its ongoing interaction with the Kingdom Hall Trust (see below).

One key issue which emerged during the inquiry was the extent to which the charity itself remained responsible for ensuring children and vulnerable people are safe from harm within JW congregations.

Notwithstanding the charity having had an historic role in interacting with the Commission over JW safeguarding, the Commission’s report concludes that Watch Tower is no longer the body responsible for safeguarding within JW congregations, and therefore the inquiry can be closed.

It is the Commission’s view that following the merger of Kingdom Hall congregation charities with the Kingdom Hall Trust in March 2022 (‘KHT’) that KHT is now the body responsible for safeguarding congregation members. The Commission has opened a compliance case to work with KHT’s trustees to ensure that the safeguarding policies, guidance, and procedures of KHT provide a safe environment for beneficiaries within all JW congregations.

The Commission’s report is critical of the charity’s trustees’ conduct during the inquiry, expressing the view that on occasions the trustees were “not as straightforward or transparent as they should have been” in relation to JW child safeguarding responsibilities, and that during certain phases of the investigation, “the trustees’ communications were protracted, with the charity’s responses often failing to provide the information requested or sufficient clarity to satisfy the inquiry, giving rise to further questions.”

The inquiry noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that these behaviours were deliberate attempts to obstruct the inquiry.

The report also details that legal challenges brought by the charity, which sought to challenge some of the regulator’s decisions and orders, which partly explain the significant delays to the inquiry.

Helen Stephenson, chief executive of the Charity Commission said: We are clear that a charity must be a safe, trusted environment and that protecting people and safeguarding should be a governance priority for all charities, regardless of size, type or income.

“I am pleased that this long-running inquiry, which demonstrates the Commission’s resolve and determination to ensure that safeguarding policy issues are addressed comprehensively by charities, has now concluded.

“Our continuing regulatory compliance case involving the Kingdom Hall Trust aims to ensure that the KHT’s safeguarding policies and procedures  protect congregation members and those that come into contact with KHT.”

The full inquiry report is available on GOV.UK.

Timeline of significant developments prior to, and during inquiry

2007

  • Commission opens statutory inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses after an Elder was convicted for historic sexual offences. The Commission’s inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation finds that it did not have a child protection policy.
  • One of the outcomes from the Commission’s inquiry into the London Mill Hill Congregation is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain agrees to develop a child protection policy which would be disseminated to all JW congregations.

2010

  • In May 2010, the Commission seeks advice on the draft policy from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (‘NSPCC’).
  • A summary of the NSPCC’s findings is supplied to the charity. The charity also seeks its own advice from a safeguarding consultancy.
  • In finalising the policy, the charity chooses not to adopt all of the NSPCC’s recommendations.

2011

  • Watch Tower distributes child protection policy which all Elders of JW congregations are expected to adhere to.

2013

  • Following the conviction of a former ministerial servant of a JW congregation charity, Charity Commission writes to Watch Tower to raise concerns about the policy and its implementation.
  • Commission seeks advice from NSPCC, which finds the policy to be at odds with UK legislation and guidance.
  • The charity updates and recirculates the policy.

2014

  • March: Commission meets with the charity, to raise its concerns about the revised policy, which does not address concerns raised by NSPCC. The trustees do not clearly set out that Watch Tower is no longer responsible for drafting and disseminating the policy, nor do they state which organisation is now responsible for this.
  • May: Charity Commission opens statutory inquiry.
  • August: Watch Tower challenges decision to open inquiry and legal orders requiring the charity to submit information to the Commission, beginning a period of several years during which the work of the inquiry is constrained.

2016

  • December: Supreme Court refuses the Watch Tower permission to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal against the Commission’s investigation.

2019

  • September: Charity Commission informs Watch Tower that it had commissioned the Ineqe Safeguarding Group to undertake independent review of JW’s child safeguarding policies and procedures.
  • December: Ineqe’s report is provided to Watch Tower, ahead of planned meeting to discuss the findings. The charity cancels the meeting asking to provide a formal response to the independent report.

2020

  • January: Charity provides inquiry with written opinion from its safeguarding expert, which states that the Ineqe report was out of date. Watch Tower demands the inquiry is terminated, claiming the grounds for the inquiry no longer exist.
  • June: After careful consideration, the Commission refuses the request to close the inquiry.
  • July: Charity instigates Judicial Review procedures against the Commission’s refusal to conclude the inquiry and in respect of disclosure.

2021

  • Trustees’ cooperation with inquiry improves following permission from the High Court for Watch Tower to bring Judicial Review procedures against the Commission.

2023

  • Commission concludes that Watch Tower is not the organisation that is currently directly responsible for the safety of JW beneficiaries.

Legionella bacteria at Western General: Investigations underway

Investigations are being carried out at the Western General Hospital following detection of Legionella bacteria in water supplying parts of the radiotherapy treatment area.

The source has been isolated and there have been no cases of infection in patients or staff.  The type of Legionella detected does not usually cause infection in humans. 

In line with national guidance, a thorough programme of disinfection and cleaning is being carried out and services temporarily relocated to minimise any potential risk.

Essential patient services are continuing to be provided in other areas of the building.

Two specialist radiotherapy treatment machines (Linacs) have been temporarily closed while remedial works continue. Patients who are normally treated on these Linacs will be reallocated to one of the other five treatment machines at the Western General Hospital which are not affected.

The remaining radiotherapy machines will be run for extended hours to ensure patient appointments continue to be allocated and carried out as quickly as possible.

Alison MacDonald, Nurse Director, NHS Lothian said: “Legionella bacteria was detected during routine water sampling as part of our building monitoring and hygiene vigilance measures.”

“The risk to patients and staff is low but we’ve enhanced infection and control measures across the building as a precaution. 

“We assure patients that radiotherapy treatments will continue to be carried out as quickly as possible and apologise to anyone who has been affected or had their appointment rescheduled.”

The situation is being closely monitored and continuously assessed. Patients will be kept informed of any changes and should speak to their treatment team if they have any concerns.

First trams on route to Newhaven

A little piece of local history was made on Monday night (13 March), when the first tram in over 65 years ran down Leith Walk, as the Trams to Newhaven project nears completion.

Ahead of the route opening for service in spring 2023, a period of testing and commissioning is required to ensure the newly constructed line, software and signals work effectively and safely.

On Monday, the first stage of testing began, which involves trams travelling at walking pace along small sections of the route, starting at Picardy Place. This will continue through the week, taking place during the night to minimise traffic disruption.

Once the first stage is completed, the frequency and speed of tram testing will increase, and trams will start running to a timetable. Drivers on the route have carried out significant training in the lead-up to testing, including on a state-of-the-art simulator.

People are still being encouraged to take care and be aware of the presence of trams on the route for the first time over the coming weeks.

Councillor Scott Arthur, Transport and Environment Convener, said: “This is a huge milestone for Trams to Newhaven as we see the first trams on Leith Walk in my lifetime.

“We’re fast approaching the start of passenger services this spring, and that the project is set to be delivered on time and within budget, despite the challenges of recent years, is testament to the hard work of all those involved.

“Bringing the tram to Newhaven will be transformative for the area, and the wider city. As well as boosting the economy and providing sustainable, high-capacity public transport to this densely populated part of Edinburgh, the project has significantly improved the entire route, with new cycle links, spaces to relax and spend time and newly planted trees and shrubs.

“As we enter the final phase of the project, testing and commissioning will make sure the line and infrastructure works safely and efficiently, while also confirming service capacity. Of course, this is the first time there will be trams on Leith Walk and in Leith in recent years so I would urge people to take extra care when in the area.”

Lea Harrison, Managing Director of Edinburgh Trams, said: “To see one of our trams running along Leith Walk was a proud moment for us, and this latest milestone in the project will enable us to step up our own preparations for the launch of passenger services to Newhaven.

“This includes real-world driver training on the new section of line following an intense period of familiarisation involving our state-of-the-art tram simulator.”

You could argue that this ‘historic’ event is actually running years late. The line to Newhaven and the Granton Spur were part of the original TIE network plans. The trams fiasco is the subject to a long-running inquiry led by Lord Hardie which is investigating the reasons why ‘the Edinburgh Tram project incurred delays, cost more than originally budgeted and through reductions in scope delivered significantly less than projected.’

The council maintains that the Trams to Newhaven project ‘remains on schedule for completion by spring 2023 and within the £207.3m budget, with all major construction now complete’. A specific date for when the route will be open for passengers will be announced in due course.

As part of the commissioning process every aspect of the new infrastructure will be thoroughly tested to ensure it meets the required safety standards.

There will be some bus diversions around Leith Walk in place overnight during the week commencing 13 March to allow for the testing. 

The latest information on diversions is available on the Lothian Buses website.

The council warns: ‘Due to industry wide challenges with the availability of materials and skilled labour, impacted by Brexit and the war in Ukraine along with significant demand for labour in the UK and overseas, there are small pockets of public realm works that will now be completed over the coming months.’

Full details of the programme are available on the Trams to Newhaven website.

Maria Ortega, Sacyr Farrans Neopul (SFN), project director on Trams to Newhaven, said: “As contractors on the Trams to Newhaven project, the Sacyr Farrans Neopul JV team are extremely proud to be achieving this huge milestone.  

“We have been working successfully alongside our partners, supply chain and client for over four years to deliver this significant project in Edinburgh, Scotland.

“Despite the challenges of unprecedented times experienced throughout the life cycle of the project, seeing the first tram travelling down the newly completed line as part of the testing and commissioning process will be a memorable moment.

“The testing and commissioning phase will allow the new systems and infrastructure to be integrated into the existing tram network.

“As we reach the final stages of delivering this key piece of infrastructure to the people of the city, we appreciate the public’s continued support during this final technical phase of the project.”

Steven Jackson, Director, Turner & Townsend, said: “As the City of Edinburgh Council’s delivery partner for the Trams to Newhaven project, we’re delighted to have reached this significant milestone with the commencement of the testing and commissioning period, which will see trams travelling the full route.

“Following approval of the project in March 2019, we have worked closely with all members of the project team and third parties through an early contractor involvement period, significant utility diversions, and the install of new infrastructure and systems.

“The complexity of this ambitious project has required the team to tackle and overcome many challenges along the way, but collaboration has been key.

“We look forward to successfully delivering this major transport project in line with the programme set out in the final business case; and the start of the passenger services this Spring.”

Find out more about Trams to Newhaven, including landscape plans and timelines.