Subscribe to Search results

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:

It had been restricted as the regular monthly payments would increase from time to time and adjusted for those with the greatest financial need.

Published on:

Peter Stevens stated that a census form was required to be completed for regpay. The reason a census form was required was due to the Trust needing to be kept up to date with any changes to financial circumstances as the census form required details of household bills etc.

Published on:

Peter Stevens would have, what he regarded and has recognised as, some rants that included inappropriate and disgraceful comments.

Published on:

Peter Stevens had said the Trust was inadequately set up by Government.

Published on:

Christopher FitzGerald commented in his statement to the Inquiry that he was disappointed the Government had not taken the opportunity provided by the Archer Inquiry to avoid making payments on a discretionary basis.

Published on:

Christopher FitzGerald wrote to the Government to complain that unless more money were given, the Trust could not meet its objectives adequately and said the same to officials, though the Archer Inquiry was his main hope.

Published on:

Christopher FitzGerald was given assurance in 2008 that there would be annual funding indefinitely.

Published on:

Christopher FitzGerald stated that during his time in office, guidelines were available but not necessarily circulated or published.

Published on:

Jan Barlow gave evidence that a staffing cap had been placed on the Macfarlane Trust during her time in office (January 2013 to October 2018).

Published on:

Jan Barlow learned from her first board meeting that there were concerns around the length of time it took for applications to the Trust to be approved.

Published on:

If an application to the Trust were rejected, there were no published criteria setting out the basis on which an appeal might succeed.

Published on:

Jan Barlow thought the process of funding single grants was bureaucratic, could take many months and that there were difficulties with communications as people kept being asked for more information.

Published on:

The Trust took account of payments from the Skipton Fund when assessing income.

Published on:

Decisions as to single grants were subjective, depending on the view of the decision-maker at the time, rather than based on policy.

Published on: