After Thoughts by Jane Taylor

back to the contents page

So, at last, we may congratulate the 62 happy beneficiaries of Fair Share. I don’t want to spoil anyone’s party, but I do want to record a few of my reflections on this whole process, because I think it has revealed more about the weaknesses than the strengths of the Lottery, and actually no one emerges from it as a big winner.

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

First, let’s be clear about ‘new’ money, which I gather has caused confusion. Fair Share involves not a penny of extra money coming to the Lottery. In fact, the very concept is daft. The NLDF is a single, ring-fenced pot, all of which is, eventually, spent wholly and exclusively on Lottery projects. Only Camelot’s efforts can increase the coffers. The ‘new’ £50m Fair Share contribution from NOF is not new: it will need to be accounted for in a future funding round. And the CF’s contribution is 7% of its mainstream budget. What Fair Share is, in essence, is an exercise in redistribution. It is about intensifying the pressure on distribution boards that the government has been applying since the 1998 Act, to target their funds more selectively on areas of greatest social and economic need.

My instinct about this scheme all along was that it was primarily a political exercise, a ‘quick win’ for an incoming Cabinet minister, another cheap hit for politicians against the long-suffering distribution boards. In large part I hold to that view. The sums involved, once broken down, will be unimpressive set against Lottery funding totals and will leave at best only faint tracks of progress in very deprived areas. Without any doubt, many of the interventions that the Community Fund at least will make under the rubric of Fair Share will be exactly those it would have undertaken anyway. But I am not wholly cynical about the exercise. It has – possibly inadvertently –set the boards on their mettle in terms of their accountability for funding priorities. The analytical exercise that was forced on the boards has shown up areas of weakness and neglect. Paradoxically it also shows that the Community Fund –which has been at the sharp end of ministerial scrutiny – has done quite well. Look among the silent, non-participating boards for the worst offenders.

Something old, something new
What are we to make of the parliamentary debate on the National Lottery at the beginning of the month – apart from the fabulous contribuion that Lottery funds have made to Mr Gerry Steinberg’s Durham constituency? 

Well, quite a lot of ministerial frustration, for one thing, and much of it echoing the well-worn themes of Ms Jowell’s predecessor, Chris Smith, particularly on targeting, proactive and joined-up working by the boards. Lottery Monitor’s readers are unlikely to take issue with much of that. We should note and welcome the minister’s defence of the boards, albeit qualified, in relation to the tabloids’ ‘£3.5bn Lottery mountain scandal’. And I for one warmly welcome the thought-provoking and brave comments about using Lottery funds to back risk-taking – for make no mistake, if high-risk, high-profile Lottery projects go belly-up, it is the minister who will attract the most flak. As reported on page 1, the debate threw up another theme: a fair degree of suspicion among MPs about the New Opportunities Fund. The old argument about ‘additionality’ simply will not lie down, and it is interesting that Tessa Jowell flagged up her intention to push that particular debate on a bit in her forthcoming review. But in the meantime, I close with the best reassurance I can offer, the words of the minister on the subject: ‘Lottery funding should not and will not substitute for Government spending.’