Review responses flood in

back to the contents page

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

Nearly 420 organisations and individuals have contributed comments to the Government’s consultation on the future of lottery funding, which closed on 30 October. Department officials are said to be surprised and delighted at both the level and quality of responses. They had expected to receive about 100, and would have been pleased with 150; in the event they got nearly three times that number.

Among the 416 publicly available responses, nearly 100 are from local authorities and the same number again from national, regional and local voluntary-sector interests. Among the 45 individuals are quite a few lottery or funding consultants; and 18 MPs (including one MSP) also responded. Government departments or units that submitted are Treasury, Regional Coordination Unit (within the ODPM), Home Office and its Children and Young Persons Unit. Among the Lottery Boards, Sport Scotland seems not to have submitted.

According to the DCMS, officials will analyse and summarise the responses, passing them over to the Secretary of State to consider by the end of the year, with a view to publishing a formal response by late spring or early summer. It is likely, however, that Tessa Jowell will proceed ahead of this schedule with simple, non-controversial changes, of which the most widely touted is a simplification and easing-up of the financial directions imposed on the distributors – which should in turn help speed the applications process.

It is too early to get any coherent sense of the main themes of the responses. However, participants in a Yorkshire and Humber Lottery Monitor event held in late November heard a tantalising account of ‘early impressions’ from Bernard McLoughlin, DCMS representative in the Yorkshire and Humber Government Office. McLoughlin outlined a number of headline points arising from the initial sifting of responses, including:

• A move to more local decision making about awards must accelerate, but not by using local politicians because this will politicise the process. Rather, existing structures such as LSPs are more suitable vehicles.
• In addition reference groups (citizens’ panels, etc) should be created (either virtual or physical) from the wider community. 
• There is no appetite for new grants schemes, and distributors should streamline or reduce their current schemes.
• Should the lower limit be removed on A4A awards?
• Distributors at national level will be expected to engage more closely with other government initiatives such as the Active Communities Unit in the Home Office and at regional level with New Deal for Communities teams in GOs. This is to strengthen the match between lottery funds and these other funding sources.
• The single application form has a big postbag both for and against. The most sensible course may be to try to produce a single form for the smallest grants – along with a single clearing-house approach (like A4A). Beyond that it is not helpful. 
• There is an increasing emphasis on viewing regional lottery partnerships as though they are a single entity.
• Lots of support for retaining the distinctiveness of the lottery.
• But also pressure to match lottery funds with government funding.
• There was support for core revenue funding only in extreme cases.
• Support for endowments and for social enterprise.
• The public focus should be on the lottery brand, not individual distributors.
• There is no significant support for a single distributor but suggestions about merging the two big operators, NOF and CF.

Workshop attenders heard speculation that the review could throw up some ‘far-reaching proposals’ which may require legislation, leading to a further mini-round of consultation in the spring.