Press release: New charity investigation: Islamic Trust (Maidenhead)

image_pdfimage_print

The Charity Commission, the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales, has opened a statutory inquiry into Islamic Trust (Maidenhead), registered charity number 1034710. The inquiry was opened on 19 April 2017.

The charity, based in Maidenhead, has objects to provide facilities of worship and educational services for individuals practicing the Islamic faith.

In 2016 the charity was included in the Commission’s class inquiry into charities that are in default for submitting their statutory returns for 2 or more financial years. The charity was removed from the inquiry after the overdue accounts were submitted, and the Commission provided regulatory advice and guidance to the trustees in respect to their legal obligation to file accounts on time. Following the charity’s removal from the class inquiry, the trustees wrote to the Commission and provided assurances that the charity’s future statutory returns would be filed on time.

In February 2017, the trustees again failed to meet their legal obligations to file the charity’s statutory returns for the financial year end March 2016 on time. The trustees’ repeated failure to comply with their legal duties, particularly given the assurances previously provided, and the continued evidence of mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity warrants further investigation from the Commission as part of an inquiry.

The inquiry will examine:

  • the administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees
  • the financial controls and management of the charity
  • the conduct of the trustees
  • whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law

In opening the inquiry, the Commission has exercised its legal powers and made an order directing the trustees to file the charity’s outstanding statutory returns.

It is the Commission’s policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing what issues the inquiry looked at, what actions were undertaken as part of the inquiry and what the outcomes were. Reports of previous inquiries by the Commission are available on GOV.UK.

The charity’s details can be viewed on the Commission’s online charity search tool.

Ends

PR 36/17


Notes to editors

  1. The Charity Commission is the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales. To find out more about our work, see our annual report.
  2. Search for charities on our online register.
  3. Details of how the Commission reports on its regulatory work can be found on GOV.UK.
  4. The purpose of an inquiry to examine issues in detail and investigate and establish the facts so that the regulator can ascertain whether there has been misconduct and mismanagement; establish the extent of the risk to the charity’s property, beneficiaries or work; decide what action needs to be taken to resolve the serious concerns, if necessary using its investigative, protective and remedial powers to do so.
  5. The Commission’s decision to announce the opening of a statutory inquiry is based on whether it is in the public interest to do so and with consideration of our objective to increase public trust and confidence in charities.
  6. On 22 December 2016, the Commission published a report online detailing the findings of the class inquiry into the charity.
  7. The Commission issued the Order under section 84 of the Charities Act 2011 on 19 April 2017. Section 84 gives the Commission the power to direct any action to be taken that it considers expedient in the interests of the charity.

Press release: Bishop of Sodor and Man: Peter Eagles

image_pdfimage_print

The Queen has approved the nomination of the Venerable Peter Andrew Eagles QHC, BA, MTh, AKC, Deputy Chaplain-General HM Land Forces; Archdeacon for the Army, and Honorary Canon of Salisbury Cathedral, for election as Bishop of Sodor and Man in succession to the Right Reverend Robert Mar Erskine Paterson, MA, on his resignation on 11 November 2016.

The Venerable Peter Eagles, aged 57, studied at the School of Slavonic; East European Studies and at King’s College, London, and at the Universities of Heidelberg and Oxford. He trained for the ordained ministry at St Stephen’s House, Oxford.

He served his title at St Martin’s, Ruislip in the Diocese of London from 1989 to 1992. Since1992 he has served as a Chaplain in the British Army, ministering to soldiers and families and the wider community in many locations in the United Kingdom and overseas, including military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been Archdeacon for the Army since 2011, Honorary Chaplain to the Queen since 2013, and Honorary Canon of Salisbury Cathedral since 2015. He is a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies.

Peter is married to Gail, whom he met in the parish in Ruislip and with whom he has since lived in 14 different places in 25 years, and they have a son who graduated in 2016 from Balliol College and now works for a publishing firm in Oxford.

His interests include European languages and literature (in which he maintains active academic study and research), cross-cultural learning and discussion, restoring a small ancient house, and playing baroque arias on the oboe.

Fanciful figures

image_pdfimage_print

This week we saw a couple of sets of fanciful figures intrude on the debate. There was Labour’s 10,000 police at £30 a year salary, hastily adjusted to £8000 a year, still way below what we normally pay our officers. Then there was the FT’s take on the EU bill for the UK leaving the Union, at Euro 100bn.

The first sets of numbers were mistakes, and have been adjusted upwards as much Labour spending will need to be to make it realistic. £300 m a year is nearer the mark.

The second story that the UK owes up to Euro 100 bn is just silly. There are no legal obligations to pay beyond the sums we owe for our regular contributions over the next twenty two months before we leave. If they want a political deal on money, then of course they would need to knock off our share of the assets. I don’t see that is a sensible or attractive way to proceed for them. They should just accept the Treaty that allows for no special bill.

The UK should continue to be friendly, outward going and positive about it all. We should continue to stress the great deal we are proposing for our future relationship. Free access to our market for all their exporters. Guarantees for all their citizens living and working in the UK. Continued large UK contributions to the defence, security, research and culture of Europe.

Stable and strong leadership is needed by the UK, to be optimistic but to be firm in resisting silly proposals that have no basis in law or political reality.
The EU disobliging briefings sound as if they are coming from people who suddenly realise their negotiating strategy of pressurising a member state into seeing it their way is not going to work. The EU thought the UK would want to stay in the Single market Custom Union. They could then seek to charge us for that. It was always a silly assumption, as the UK clearly wants to make its own free trade agreements with the rest of the world which means leaving the Customs Union. The UK was also clear it wanted to stop paying the money. It is the Commission who are most worried about the loss of the UK’s contributions, at its their budgets and salaries that will suffer.

The way countries pay to trade with other reluctant countries is via tariffs. If the EU wants to put tariffs up against us, it can only do so to a limited extent under WTO rules.It would be a lot cheaper than the bills we are hearing about. In return we can impose more tariffs on them given the nature and volume of their exports to us. That is why I have always thought it likely in the end they will want tariff free trade. It is, of course, always possible they wish to self harm. However, it seems it is more the EU Commission that favours a tough approach as the harm is to the member states, not to the Commission itself. The member states are more likely to wake up to the harm it could do their export companies and especially their farmers and want a more sensible approach.

Promoted by Fraser McFarland on behalf of John Redwood, both at 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU