Lottery Funding: Community Projects (Hansard, 15 July 1996)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
No, my Lords. Applications for community-based projects are treated on their own merits and are not assessed by reference to the success or failure of applications for national projects.

§ Lord Hacking
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will he confirm that there are important, and indeed big, community projects which are not currently getting national funds? Does my noble friend agree that generally in the London area community projects are not doing very well in getting lottery funds? Is it not correct that, on figures issued by my noble friend's department, community projects in the borough of Southwark are receiving only 2 per cent. of lottery funds as against national projects; in Islington, 3 per cent; in Camden, 3.4 per cent; and in Lambeth, 5 per cent? What advice can my noble friend give to those who are putting forward those community projects?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, at the risk of stating the obvious, the key to receiving lottery grants is to apply for them. That is the essential first step. The kinds of points that my noble friend raised have caused concern. I understand that the London Pride Partnership is making contact with the distribution bodies to see whether there is scope for maximising lottery opportunities in London.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report that far too few inner city sports projects have so far come forward for lottery support? Is there any explanation for that, if it is a fact; and does it matter anyway?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am not aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers. The purpose of the lottery is to try to ensure an appropriately even spread of distribution across the country as a whole, taking account of the particular circumstances and contexts that pertain. If it is the case that there is such a 610 substantial shortfall as that to which the noble Lord refers, the steps taken by the London Pride Partnership should perhaps be taken by those who are concerned.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, would it be possible, bearing in mind the Minister's practical reply, for the results of any inquiries to be made known to the House?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am sure that the results of any inquiries made of the distribution bodies will be generally available. If I have any information that would be of particular interest to the noble Lord, I hope he will be assured that I shall contact him.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my noble friend said that the first step is to apply to the National Lottery Board. Surely the second step is to make sure that you have a very well thought out and costed project. Is it a fact that some applications are not sufficiently well thought out and constituted?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, there must be examples to which my noble friend refers. However, in certain circumstances the distribution bodies are prepared to provide funds for feasibility studies to enable those who are perhaps less well placed to bring forward a proposal in a properly worked out form.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, can consideration be given to changing the rules relating to lottery grants so that the amount given does not have to be balanced by an equivalent amount raised from charity? Are the Government aware that it is very difficult for a museum, for example, that is to be awarded £5 million to have to raise the equivalent amount from charity? Charity resources are finite and limited. I receive complaints from everywhere. Will the Government consider this matter?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, right from the outset matching funding has been a matter for the distribution bodies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has encouraged the distributors to be flexible in that regard for the kind of reasons mentioned by the noble Lord.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, my noble friend said that it was necessary that there should be an even spread of the yield of the lottery across the country. Is he aware that there is an even spread of schools across the country, and a very widely shared perception that there should be an increase in the encouragement of sport played in and between schools? Could the bodies responsible for distributing the money be reminded of the need to enable teachers to supervise that sport at the cost of replacement teacher time, which is expensive?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend's point is a trifle wide of the Question. It is the case that one of the distributing bodies is the Sports Council, which is interested in the promotion of sport in its widest context. School sport is particularly important.
611 As regards the first part of my noble friend's question, in referring to the even spread of lottery distributions I specifically said that it was important to see them in the context of the circumstances that pertain. In the case of national projects, clearly if there is only one such project it will be very expensive and will have to be in only one place.