Subscribe to Search results

Neil Bateman was a contractor for Macfarlane Trust advising and assisting in relation to welfare benefits from 2007. In his witness statement to the Inquiry he explained that he was "given complete freedom to represent clients and to be a vigorous advocate against the DWP [Department for Work and Pensions] and local authorities."

Published on:

Neil Bateman was asked to advise on a proposed welfare policy by the Macfarlane Trust describing it as "very complicated". During oral evidence to the Inquiry, he said that "as a general principle, it's not a very good idea to have a separate means test for people who have already been means tested often to death by the DWP...it didn't take into account the costs of children and the costs of taking paid employment."

Published on:

During oral evidence to the Inquiry Dr Roger Moore confirmed that statement put across by counsel to the Inquiry which suggested that the Department of Health's view was "that the adverse effects they'd [individuals with haemophilia] suffered were unavoidable".

Published on:

During oral evidence to the Inquiry Dr Roger Moore confirmed that a meeting took place between the Haemophilia Society and John Moore, the Secretary of State, in relation to compensation.

Published on:

Tony Newton MP made a statement to the House of Commons on the making of an ex gratia grant to the Society to enable it to establish a trust fund. It was left up to the Society to decide how to administer the 10 million pound grant from the Government to set up a trust fund.

Published on:

The trustees of the Macfarlane Trust agreed, on the recommendation of the Allocations Committee, that the mandate on individual payments made by the administrator and social worker without a trustee's signature should be raised from £500 to £1000.

Published on:

It was noted at a Macfarlane Trust meeting that procedures at that time allowed the Allocations Committee more time to resolve complex cases in greater detail and to help develop policy.

Published on:

The Macfarlane Trust meeting decided that the infected partners were not entitled to help from the Trust in their own right under the Trust deed, but were entitled to help as dependants during the lifetime of the beneficiary. They should however receive special consideration due to their secondary infection.

Published on:

A paper on allocation policy for widows spoke of such grants as the area of expenditure "most vulnerable to criticism by our paymasters as encroaching on the grounds of compensation, and thus could in time affect any decision to allocate any further funds".

Published on:

Previously, a user trustee was required to withdraw from trusteeship if they wished to receive any benefit from the Trust. In a Macfarlane Trust meeting the embargo on benefits to trustees was discussed. It was noted that a special dispensation had been sought from the Commissioners but they had been unable to make the exception because of the general trust law.

Published on:

Peter Stevens stated that the Macfarlane Trust trustees had thought that the Government would have viewed the widows and dependants as secondary and of deserving less consideration.

Published on:

Peter Stevens stated in his evidence that the Department of Health would not give an assurance of continued funding for the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

Peter Stevens had said that he would make further efforts to obtain the required additional funding.

Published on:

The approach undertaken was softly softly to ensure that the Government understood the problems.

Published on:

The Trust were looking for new priorities and ways to use limited funds as they wanted the Government to be unable to resist their pleas for more money.

Published on:

Peter Stevens had told trustees to tell the Minister that they were prepared to resign which they rejected. One of the reasons he had told trustees to resign was due to the Minister stating it was an 11% increase but it was hardly an increase as it included provisions for costs of administration which had been covered under a section 64 grant.

Published on:

Peter Stevens stated in his oral evidence that he had never stopped working to try and protect the rights of the registrants and there is evidence of private discussions regarding this with civil servants.

Published on:

Despite a number of wake up calls there was a lack of openness and transparency in the running of the Trust.

Published on:

There was a misplaced distrust of the beneficiaries by the trustees for a fear that the beneficiaries would abuse the system. The distrust had led to policies requiring to be established in detail.

Published on:

From the early 1990s the policy was to restrict grants for health related issues.

Published on: