Subscribe to Search results

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:

The Trust's taking into account Skipton payments when assessing needs associated with HIV was recognised as undesirable but nevertheless persisted with.

Published on:

Child benefit was taken into account when assessing income need for the purposes of the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

Jan Barlow thought that one to one meetings with Liz Carroll were very limited, and thought that a meeting on 29 January 2015 between Roger Evans, Liz Carroll and herself was the first to have been formally arranged.

Published on:

Jan Barlow is emphatic that she did not say the words attributed to her (that the Department of Health should wait before making a decision as more people will have died).

Published on:

Roger Evans sought to ensure that what the Trust board did was in compliance with the wishes of the Department of Health as he understood them.

Published on:

Roger Evans' personal view was that fundraising to substitute for what should have been provided centrally would have been insulting.

Published on:

Roger Evans was reluctant for the Trust to be involved in campaigning as it was not the Trust's role, it did not have the resources and he was concerned what the reaction would be from some of the beneficiaries.

Published on:

When the Department of Health asked the Trust for a statement as to the standard of charitable need applied to applications for grants from reserves, Roger Evans accepted this was none of the Department of Health's business but did not express this to the Department in writing - only orally.

Published on:

Roger Evans' recollection was that only three trustees were prepared to sign a letter to the Department of Health threatening to resign as a board unless it provided better funding to meet the needs of the beneficiaries.

Published on:


Roger Evans stated in his oral evidence that he had a difficult relationship with Russell Mishcon.

Published on:

Roger Evans held the view that the Department of Health had influence over the Macfarlane Trust.

Published on:

Roger Evans did not appreciate that, as a matter of law, the Macfarlane Trust could not be closed down by the Department of Health.

Published on:

Roger Evans' view expressed to the Inquiry was that there were ways of getting what you wanted from the Department and its ministers, and ways to which they would not respond.

Published on:

In evidence, Roger Evans accepted that some amongst the beneficiary community would have thought that due to his attitude and approach the Trust was too close to the Department of Health.

Published on:

In evidence, Roger Evans could not remember whether the Department of Health had requested or instructed the board to make an allocation from reserves below the level at which the programme of expenditure from reserves had been set.

Published on:

In a memo, Brian Bradley (Department of Health) suggested that the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts would receive a combined extra £400,000 in funding.

Published on:

In an email chain, Department of Health officials suggested that an extra £400,000 would be reasonable funding for the Trusts.

Published on: