News

Reactions to the government's proposals for changes to the National Lottery have focused on the merger of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. One criticism is that the larger unit, which allocated half the "good cause" money, will miss out small, local projects.

This fear is reinforced by a statement from Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, that she wants money to go to agencies that can publicise what they do with lottery money. It is the multi-million pound national voluntary societies with their PR departments, magazines and celebrity-backing that can hit the headlines. So, too bad for those locally run projects in deprived areas that have the support of low-income residents rather than royalty and that lack contacts with the media. Of course, these projects are closest to children in need, but so what?

But the merger is not the only issue of lottery concern. The government has decreed that lottery money will be used to fund the 2012 Olympics if they are awarded to London. I remember that before the National Lottery got off the ground both government and opposition were insistent that grants would go only to voluntary bodies and none would be used to replace statutory spending. But before long, health, education and community services were receiving lottery money. So much for the promises of politicians. Now the £700m - and no doubt the costs will escalate - for the Olympics will mean that voluntary bodies will be deprived of the amount.

The minister is also boasting that the public will have more say in how the lottery money will be spent: it really will be a "people's lottery". Does she mean that those appointed committees of affluent establishment figures who have the power to decide who gets the grants are to get the chop? No. A TV show may allow viewers to express preferences for what is deserving of money.

The New Labour discredited focus groups may be enrolled. But the big decisions will still be made by the same, unelected big people. After all, you can imagine the minister saying: "You could hardly expect low-income residents of run-down areas to decide how public money should be spent."

Why not? Poor people pay proportionately more into the lottery than the affluent. It follows that money from their pockets goes towards those grants to the Tate Gallery in London, the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh, the Lawn Tennis Association, posh rowing clubs, the purchase of the Churchill papers, Eton College and all those other wealthy bodies that have the accountants and highly paid professionals to make out their case through the complicated application procedures. And these are the establishment organisations that obtain the big lottery bucks. Projects in deprived areas get the crumbs and struggle to survive each year. Jowell is now generously saying that small project grants will double from £5,000 to £10,000. How many staff can be employed with that?


My proposal is that the lottery should be turned on its head. Punters in deprived areas should be allowed to tick a box saying that they want their contribution directed back into their own locality. The local population should elect committees to allocate grants to existing and new projects that are genuinely controlled by residents and which will improve the quality of life in the neighbourhood.

The upside-down approach would have these advantages:

• Local projects would expand and so increase the kind of services which residents, not outsiders, decide are best for their neighbourhoods.
• As long as lottery funds were available, the projects would be likely to obtain continual funding in contrast to the short-term grants they receive now.
• As projects grow, so they would take on more staff from the area whose salaries would boost the local economy.
• More residents would be empowered. The consistent record of locally-run projects is that the involvement of the most deprived citizens as volunteers, sessional workers and full-time staff does much to boost their self-confidence. They begin to exert some control over their circumstances and they realise they are improving conditions for their families.
• Democracy would be promoted as elected grant-makers took the place of some of those appointed by patronage.

These proposals would result in more lottery funds going to those at the hard end. In short, the National Lottery would become a tool for the redistribution of money and power.

I have a vague feeling that, years ago, Jowell was in favour of such redistribution.

Bob Holman is a community worker in Easterhouse, Glasgow.