–This shows for sure whistleblower law reform is needed — urgently; UK parliament plans debate on whistleblowing law this Friday, March 1 (this plan seems to have been abandoned); the next Post Office scandal?
Reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr
Feb. 28-March 1, 2024 — The Charity Commission in Britain is not responding to requests for comment on whether it engaged in either accidental or deliberate retaliation against care-home whistleblowers during the Covid19 pandemic, one of the worst in global history.
Compassion in Care, a tiny-but-important charity that supported care workers struggling to deal with massive spikes in patients and deaths, was made to compile multiple reports, including a 22-page document dated 26th of August 2023 (see below).
During surging amounts of strain and grief, and while hapless administrators sent sick patients to privatized care institutions on the order of government ministers to free up room in overcrowded hospitals, Eileen Chubb, founder of the charity and a trailblazing whistleblower herself was required to divert her time to answering inane questions such as:
What action do the trustees intend to take so that the helpline is focussed on fulfilling the charity objects for its beneficiaries?
What action is taken to avoid calls from individuals who are not beneficiaries of the charity?
And this request for information that’s clearly already in the public domain; Chubb’s answer in bold, below that:
There are many more bad regulatory actions indicated in the report and I invite you to read the whole thing.
All regulators create paperwork and the commission has apologized in part for its approach.
While promising to comment on my questions for more than a week, the Charity Commission has not yet done so.
What I asked the commission, in part:
Was anyone sanctioned over that overly aggressive regulation?
Was your regulatory intervention in the middle of the pandemic linked to a tip off from somewhere?
The wrongdoer could be the CHARITY COMMISSION officer or the person who complained.
Was the Charity Commission used to contain Eileen Chubb during the pandemic?
(Ie to slow her disclosure to the public of mismanagement in care homes)
Is the investigation into wrongdoers at the commission ongoing?
Did the commission attempt to get Chubb to support the Office of the Whistleblower legislation (which is meant to be debated Friday)?
Does the commission support the legislation?
A press officer at the commission said on Feb. 20: “Apologies for the delay—we intend to respond with a comment.”
The Charity Commission will not be “weaponised” by people or organisations fighting “culture wars”, its chair Orlando Fraser said Feb. 26, without being specific as far as I can see. (Civilsociety.org) Fraser made the comments in a speech to charity leaders at the launch of the Commission’s new five-year strategy in London.
“While we will listen to all concerns and all views with respect, we will be beholden to no-one, no outside interest, in applying the law. We will not be swayed by fear or favour from Government, the sector, the public or the media,” Fraser said. [I guess this could be seen as a riposte to those accusing the commission of doing the dirty work of government retaliation, but it still amounts to a failure to address the specific allegations and questions above.]
Snip above from Civil Society (not so civil?)
Chubb and another whistleblowing support outfit Whistleblowers UK, which provides secretarial services to the All Party Parliamentary Group on whistleblowing, are still in dispute over what happened during the pandemic and beyond… their allegations and counter allegations are documented on X, for instance. Check out #WBUK if you want.
I spoke with both Georgina Halford-Hall , chief executive of WBUK, and Chubb, both of whom stopped engaging with me after I started asking pointed questions.
There is plenty of information on Chubb’s X account:
@CompassnInCare — I’ve not been in a position to interrogate all of the allegations contained there.
Halford-Hall contended that the dispute between her and Chubb “is the sort of thing that stops MPs from wanting to support whistleblowers because they think they are all nuts.” I’ve asked MPs from the three main political parties about this.
After I published the first version of this story, Chubb said there was not a dispute but merely Halford-Hall’s bad behavior.
What’s clear to me is that those who operate in the whistleblowing support space need a heightened sense of integrity to simultaneously deal with immediate risks and historical grievances.
On whether the Public Interest Disclosure Act review outcome document will be published before the second reading debate now scheduled for March 1 (Friday):
“We can have a second reading or we can try and get it pushed back again,” Halford-Hall said.
In our conversations, Halford-Hall denigrated Chubb, then told me not to report her assertions. “If you do that, Mathew, I will never speak to you again. She can say what she likes. I’m not going to engage in that rubbish. I’m not answering her ludicrous allegations. Don’t give oxygen to silliness.”
Halford-Hall stopped returning my calls the past several days, even before I published on this dispute/ bad behavior.
‘Doing the job of government’
In conversations with me, Halford-Hall labeled rewards to whistleblowers in the US as “obscene”. Instead, whistleblowers need to be “compensated for doing the job of the government,” she said.
Halford-Hall told me she had “no funding” but the literature at the two whistleblower awareness weeks (WBAW) last year held in parliament house in London indicate support/finance from multiple sources including big firms in the compliance industry globally.
One disclosure by the APPG, its finance and its makeup is listed here. That’s all about to change with new rules for APPGs coming in at the end of March.
Indeed, when I complained in November to Halford-Hall about WBAW speakers being off the public record [even though it was an “awareness week”] she asked me whether I had any money for venues (words to that effect) — I assume to get around the rules in Westminster that deter transparency eg by not allowing recording, but it was not exactly clear.
[BTW I’m a whistleblower who has had to remortgage my home multiple times to fight unfair litigation and judicial behavior after being fired by Bloomberg LP in 2020]
[Also BTW …I was disinvited to an event at Grant Thorntons in the first WBAW last year because scrutiny by reporters was not wanted, I was told. I wasn’t informed of events and event-location changes during both the WBAWs, even though I’d signed up.]
Halford-Hall told me the Whistleblowing Bill contained no mention of “accredited schemes” …yet it does eg at 6 (3) of the bill — you can download the bill to be debated (or not as it seems as of Thursday):
“It doesn’t say anything about that [accredited schemes] in the bill,” she told me, flatly. Puzzling.
I include below some snips of missing documents from Chubb’s website, which is otherwise extremely informative about the dire state of whistleblowing support for care workers because of bad protection laws.
This amusing video below is informative and pertinent here in Britain, even though it’s focused on similar law in Australia:
Both Chubb and Halford-Hall agree urgent improvements are needed in the UK. I’ve not been able to verify whether Halford-Hall had a role in the Charity Commission’s moves against Chubb, despite multiple attempts.
I also asked for commentary from the police about the allegations. The Met Police gave this statement:
“On 3 December 2020 an allegation of malfeasance in public office was made to police. Officers assessed all the information provided to them but no criminal offence was established.
The investigation was closed. The complainant was informed of this outcome.“
———
My conclusion that the Charity Commission probably did wrong here is based on following the money and government / lawmaker behavior over many years, plus the commission’s own unwillingness to engage, its own apology, the lack of searchable documents on the gov.uk website (which seems designed to assist with coverups and deter scrutiny) … and by speaking with multiple people familiar with the situation. Comments to mathew@carrzee.net to make this story more complete and fair.
Of course, bad behavior in care homes predates the pandemic. See this document for a harrowing, unedited account of one anonymous whistleblower in two care homes. This account was originally published by Chubb, I’m told.
Here is one slightly edited conclusion from it that rings depressingly true:
“This is not about patient safety. This is about protecting institutions and their system — A financial big beast that can’t fail. Any challenges have to be crushed and dismissed. You’re in the wilderness now. Your concerns and the concerns of others don’t even spark a minimum of interest or confirmation. At no point are you told your concerns are invalid. Everyone just refuses to engage with the subject matter. Personally you are in a position of total mental exhaustion. Financially you are finished. Relationships are dying around you. And the pills are no longer working.“
Given an aging population and the many scandals engulfing government, the potential for harm against elderly people, it’s clear that care homes and hospitals (and other institutions small and large) need to have a “speak up” system that works effectively, even in times of strain.
The government has delayed for far too long.
This from an official Westminster document from more than a decade ago
(More to come, updated headline by tweaking capital C, smoothed language describing Chubb’s report, added Chubb comment after the first version of the story — to make it more clear.)
NOTES
2020
2021
Chubb said she was always transparent yet this remains unexplained:
Police examine misconduct complaint against Charity Commission
29 July 2021 by Stephen Delahunty
Police are examining a claim of misconduct in public office made by a charity against the Charity Commission.
The whistleblowing charity Compassion in Care submitted evidence to the Metropolitan Police at the end of last week after obtaining information about the regulator’s investigation into the charity through a subject access request.
In an email to police, seen by Third Sector, the charity claims the additional information shows “clear evidence of means, motive and opportunity to abuse a position of power to the extent it is misconduct in a public office”.
The commission apologised to the charity earlier this month after a review found aspects of its compliance case “disproportionate” and identified a number of other shortcomings.
These included problems in the tone of its initial correspondence, which incorrectly implied that the commission had already made a judgement on its regulatory concerns, by suggesting that a connection between trustees automatically created a conflict of interest.
The commission said its position had not changed since the outcome of its review and reiterated its intention to learn what went wrong in this case.
It also said a stage two complaints process remained underway.
Eileen Chubb, the charity’s founder, said the police enquiry must ascertain why the commission conducted what she claimed was a biased investigation.
She said: “We will fight until we get accountability for the harm [the regulator] caused our beneficiaries, trustees and volunteers.”
It is the second time the charity has accused the regulator of “politically motivated bias”.
But the commission’s review found no evidence to suggest the case should not have been opened in the first place because of the alleged motivations of those raising the concerns against the charity, or any institutional bias.
A regulator spokesperson said: “We apologised to the trustees of Compassion in Care after a review of their complaint found shortcomings in our case handling, which we acknowledge created additional stress for the trustees of a small charity.
“Our review concluded it was right for us to examine concerns raised with us about the charity and issue regulatory advice to the trustees, but aspects of our approach were not good enough.
“We are committed to learning the lessons from what went wrong in this case. We are aware that the trustees are not happy with the outcome of our review, and the matter is now subject to the next stage of our complaints process.”
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said: “Police were contacted on Friday 23 July regarding an allegation of misconduct in a public office. Enquiries are ongoing.”
——————–
Authored article
The government have known about the problem for well more than a decade. Sound familiar, post masters?
Supporting registered managers to build compassion in care homes
Jon Rouse writes in response to the BBC’s Panorama programme ‘Elderly Care: Condition Critical’.From: Department of Health and Social Care and Jon Rouse Published 20 June 2013
Rouse was …
- Director General, Social Care, Local Government and Care Partnerships
- 2013 to 2016
This was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government Written on: 19 June 2013
Watching the BBC’s Panorama programme on care homes this week (17 June), I asked myself, who has the right influence to ensure a dominant culture of compassionate care within a care home or care service? Is it the organisation’s CEO, its board, the regulator or the local authority commissioner?
I reflected on my own experience of leading culture change. In each organisation there was a specific level of management that was crucial in securing that change. They were the managers who were close enough to the front line to know what was going on but senior enough that they had authority to make change happen. If you have a critical mass of these managers on board you’re in business, without them you can’t achieve lasting change, whatever the operational or regulatory context.
In the care sector, that role and responsibility falls to the registered manager. Registered managers are the pivot point between leading and inspiring the staff team to deliver great care and the day to day management of their service. Concentrating on the needs of people who use the service, managing the budget, dealing with staff issues, talking to families and friends, all this and more is required of registered managers on a daily basis.
Given how important they are, it is somewhat surprising how little effort we have made to support and develop the registered managers in their role. The very nature of the role, including its often anti-social hours, can lead to isolation and lack of opportunities for peer support and professional development, particularly those managers working in small and medium enterprises.
We all know from our own professional lives that we need support, stimulation, challenge and encouragement if we are to remain motivated, confident and committed in our roles. This is no different for registered managers in the challenging jobs which they undertake.
The National Skills Academy for Social Care identified, via a survey of 20,000 managers last summer, that professional isolation was one of the major concerns of managers, as well as the poor perception of the sector by the press and public, and of course funding issues.
Recognising the key role that registered managers play, the Department of Health has commissioned the National Skills Academy for Social Care, to develop and launch a Registered Managers Support Programme. This was warmly welcomed across the whole of the sector. The objective of the programme is to support registered managers to be the very best leaders they can be by providing tangible, practical support, putting them in touch with other managers and helping to end the feeling of being ‘out on a limb’.
The programme was launched in March and offers development opportunities and resources. Funding is available for managers to set up their own local networks, to help build a local community of practice, to exchange ideas and offer professional support. The Skills Academy will help with setting these up and providing ideas and information in the early stages.
There are helplines available, offering legal, HR and peer support, aimed again at offering expert support and advice and in addition the academy is building an online community for managers. There will also be a series of events for registered managers, which will be rolled out over the next few months. I will join in with some of these events. So far, 800 managers have also become members of the academy. It only costs £35 to join and I hope over time many more managers will see the benefit that membership brings.
I will finish with a reflection on a recent front line visit to a care and nursing home in Kent. The care manager showed me round. It was clear from the quality of the environment and the range of activities, (I passed on the snake handling!), that this was a brilliantly run home. The manager told me how, for the first time in her career, she had recently had the chance to join a network of her peers and the benefit she was gaining from that.
I am sure there is more we can do to ensure more managers get these opportunities. Certainly, we can do more to recognise and celebrate achievement amongst this crucial cadre. We will therefore continue to develop the offer to registered managers and to help build a sustainable professional community which leads the way in delivering excellent care throughout the sector.
Published 20 June 2013
We can do better
[…] The UK probably used charity regulator to retaliate against care-home whistleblowers during pandemic… […]
[…] The UK probably used charity regulator to retaliate against care-home whistleblowers during pandemic… […]