Dangers of NAO approach

back to the contents page

Jason Finch is concerned about the wider implications of the NCADC report

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

Like everyone else whose job it is to advise on applications to the various lottery good causes, I followed the dispute over the Community Fund’s grant to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns with great interest, not least because of the possible wider implications of this case. It seems that if a government or a local authority has a strategy or policy on any issue, then somewhere there is a pressure group that represents those who are opposed to it. Most of these pressure groups are concerned with ‘social’ issues, but some are involved with the arts, sport and heritage. On the surface, such groups may appear uncontentious, but take the example of RESCUE, a registered charity dedicated to protecting British archaeological and heritage sites. It has taken a stance on the proposed road tunnel at Stonehenge that has been at odds with the preferred government policy. It is not inconceivable that such a body could apply for a grant from the HLF, Awards for All or one of the arts or sports councils. How would any of these funders respond, in the light of the NAO report?

At present, none of them mentions political activities among their reasons for not considering an application. My concern is this: an organisation could submit a lottery application that is pretty well perfect – innovative, meets priority requirements, is financially sound and sustainable – and then risk being rejected because the organisation itself had at some point publicly opposed government policy in its field. The deciding factor may not be the quality of the application but whether the funder feels it could defend the award against criticism from the government and/or the media.

The strength of the lottery has always been that it is capable of awarding grants independently of central government. If grants to organisations whose policies are out of line with government are now to be queried, then this independence is endangered. This affects anyone who advises on lottery applications: we all appreciate publicity but not infamy! The CF/NCADC case has revealed weaknesses in the way the Community Fund awards grants and clearly certain procedures need to be tightened up. There is a danger that there will be a knee-jerk reaction among the other funders to avoid putting themselves under a similar spotlight. While understandable, this should not be allowed to occur, especially as there is always the chance that government policy may change and that a pressure group may suddenly find itself in agreement with a new policy. The UK is a democracy and pressure groups have the right to disagree with government policy, as long as they do not inspire civil disobedience in the process. The majority of pressure groups undertake their activities in such a way that while they may be ‘political’, they are not ‘political and doctrinaire’, to use the Community Fund’s phrase. It would be a shame if any such group were discouraged from applying to any lottery funder as a result of what may turn out to be an isolated case.

Jason Finch is Leisure Development Officer (Lottery and Grants) at Horsham District Council. Contact him at: Jason.Finch @horsham.gov.uk