Subscribe to Search results

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:

Roger Evans understood that it was suggested photographs of beneficiaries' homes should be taken.

Published on:

When chair, Roger Evans had concerns over beneficiaries being essentially subjected to a means test.

Published on:

The adoption of "exceptional circumstances" as the principal criterion for assessing grant applications occurred without first seeking approval from the board and "exceptional circumstances" were never precisely defined.

Published on:

Roger Evans stated in his oral evidence that the NSSC had become bureaucratic in its approach to assessing applications. He described the NSSC as having introduced some of its own criteria to the decision-making process.

Published on:

There was enough dissatisfaction with the process among beneficiaries that it reached Ailsa Wight at the Department of Health who referred to it in an email to Roger Evans.

Published on:

During oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans incorrectly asserted that the Macfarlane Trust needed to obtain money (reserves) from the Department of Health. This was later corrected the following morning in oral evidence to the Inquiry.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans suggested that the Board of the Macfarlane Trust became more "relaxed" after two individuals left and that he was being "quite firm on certain issues".

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that while he was chair of the Macfarlane Trust they tried to be "consistent and transparent" with regard to the allocation of monies to beneficiaries.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that "there was some significant dissatisfaction between about 2012 and 2014 of the decision-making approaches of the NSSC" on behalf of beneficiaries.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that the Macfarlane Trust Office Guidelines did "not have to be followed to the letter".

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that with regards to means testing the Macfarlane Trust was not only interested in individual income but also taking a "common sense" approach.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that he saw no reasons why the full new guidelines for grants document was not given to beneficiaries.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Elizabeth Carroll explained that she met Jan Barlow a "couple of times...after partnership meetings...but it wasn't a frequent thing for us to meet".

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that he met with Ms Barlow and Liz Carroll for "a very informal catch-up", that he had met the latter at events like APPG meetings but that he had never had a formal meeting with her.

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Roger Evans explained that he got the impression from Jan Barlow that her relationship with Liz Carroll was not "a particularly comfortable one".

Published on:

In oral evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, Elizabeth Carroll explained that the Macfarlane Trust was legally advised to make a retraction and issue an apology and that they accepted this course of action due to the "risk to the charity in terms of cost".

Published on: