Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Sport England


Investing Lottery money in sport "is not just a sports policy. It's a health policy, an education policy, an anti-crime policy [and] an anti-drugs policy"

  —Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, Brighton, 26 September 2000


(i)  The National Lottery has become an indispensable source of funding for sport at all levels—supporting both community and elite programmes.

  (ii)  Since 1994, Sport England has distributed more than £1.3 billion to over 3,200 sports projects, benefiting: sixty-two sports; recreational, talented and elite participants; and every part of the country.

  (iii)  Of this sum, £1.1 billion has been invested in community sports projects—generating almost £1 billion in additional funding from other sources.

  (iv)  Although still in its infancy, Sport England's Lottery-funded World Class programme has already produced encouraging results. Many of our medal-winners at the Sydney Olympics—including Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Pinsent—have publicly acknowledged its contribution to their success.

  (v)  We can only sustain such improvements, and create a virtuous circle of success, if sport remains a Lottery "good cause" long into the future.


  (vi)  Independent evidence demonstrates that Sport England is an efficient and effective distributor of Lottery funds.

  (vii)  On average, Lottery-funded sports projects have doubled levels of facility usage—and tripled them among women and young people.

  (viii)  84 per cent of elite and up-and-coming athletes are "very" or "fairly" happy with the World Class performance programme.


  (ix)  Since the introduction of the Government's National Lottery Act 1998, in particular, Sport England has made the most of its opportunity to distribute Lottery funds in a more pro-active and strategic way—giving extra assistance, from its finite Lottery income, to economically and recreationally deprived groups and areas.

  (x)  Sport England has also worked to reduce the costs, complexities and delays previously associated with applications for Lottery funding—often caused by policy and financial directions that could be more flexible.

  (xi)  While we are keen to continue simplifying the Lottery application process, we are acutely conscious of the need to ensure that public money is always spent in an efficient, effective and accountable manner.

  (xii)  We have put forward a number of proposals—on which we would welcome the Committee's views—to further simplify the operation of the Lottery, and to make Lottery money go even further.


  (xiii)  Sport England's long-term approach to the use of its Lottery income was spelt out in May 1999, in its ten-year strategy document investing for our sporting future. Many of the new initiatives outlined in the strategy are now being implemented—including School Sports Co-ordinators, Sports Action Zones and the Awards for All scheme.

  (xiv)  Our ability to implement this widely welcomed strategy is currently being endangered by the faster-than-expected fall in Lottery ticket sales.

  (xv)  Together, the fall in ticket sales and the creation of an additional "good cause" have reduced Sport England's annual Lottery income from its original, higher-than-expected level by around £90 million since 1997-98.

  (xvi)  Sport England warmly welcomes the Prime Minister's recent announcement that extra Lottery money will be invested in school and community sport. We look forward to the publication of the proposed consultation paper on how this can best be achieved.

  In this submission to the Committee's inquiry into "The Operation of the National Lottery", Sport England explains the work it has undertaken to ensure that English sport benefits fully from Lottery funding—and why it is vital that sport should continue to be a "good cause".


An indispensable source of funding

1.1  In its relatively short history, the National Lottery has become an indispensable source of funding for sport at all levels: it supports everything from community facilities to projects that enable our world class sportsmen and women—able-bodied and disabled—to compete on the international stage. Indeed, the launch of the Lottery provided a lifeline to English sport at a time when both local authority and central government spending in this area was already low, in European termsa.

  1.2  In addition to offsetting these problems, which the Comprehensive Spending Review has begun to addressb, Lottery funding has created the prospect of real improvements in our long-term sporting standing—as has happened in other countries. As long as sport remains one of the "good causes", we believe that England can be optimistic about its sporting future. Over time, improved facilities will help to increase sporting participation rates; in turn, rising participation rates will give the country a bigger talent pool; and the more talented performers we have, the better our chances of having medal and title-winning sportsmen and women whose achievements can create a virtuous circle of sporting success.

Public support for sport's "good cause" status

  1.3  The public wishes to see Lottery-led improvements in English sport. Over the last decade, extensive survey evidence has shown substantial and consistent popular support for sport becoming—and remaining—one of the "good causes" benefiting from Lottery funding. For example, a 1998 Public Attitude Survey found that 90 per cent of the public back Lottery funding for community sports facilities—and almost three-quarters are in favour of Lottery support for elite and up-and-coming athletes.

Sport: improving people's quality of life

  1.4  Since the Lottery started, a growing amount of evidence has shown that spending on sport benefits not only sports participants, but society as a whole—as the Prime Minister recently stressed. It is now widely recognised that sport has a key role to play in:

    (i)  preventing children (from as young as eight years of age) and adolescents from committing offences—and, if they do, reducing the risk of re-offendingc,

    (ii)  improving public health, as recognised in last year's White Paper Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation; and

    (iii)  providing children with a well-rounded education—as demonstrated by Specialist Sports Colleges which, according to a recent OFSTED report1, have been producing both excellent sports results and faster-than-average improvements in academic performance.

  1.5  The Select Committee has recognised the strength of such evidence and concluded, last year, that "exercise and participation in sport help to combat social exclusion and improve health".2

  1.6  Sport's status as a "good cause" enjoys wide public backing, supports thousands of community projects and millions of participants, increases our chances of international success, and offers many other benefits to society. For all these reasons, it is essential that sport should continue to receive at least its current share of Lottery funding.


Over £1 billion for sixty-two sports

  2.1  Sport England has served, since 1994, as the distributor of Lottery funds to English sport. Since then, we have distributed—through our Lottery Panel—well over £1 billion to an enormous range and number of sports projects: every part of the country has benefited, as have sixty-two sports (from athletics to cycling, and roller-hockey to bowls).

  2.2  For sport as a whole, the benefits have been even greater than this £1 billion figure suggests, as Lottery funding has usually been supplemented by partnership money from other sources—much of which might not have been invested in sport without the stimulus that the Lottery provided. In fact, community projects costing a total of over £2.1 billion have already been made possible, in whole or in part, by money from the Sport England Lottery Fund.

Table One


Months of awards
Projects funded to date
Total awarded to date
Total project costs to date
Number of English counties covered
Number of sports covered

Benefiting both community and elite sport

  2.3  These awards are starting to make a real difference to English sport. For example, at one end of the spectrum, Lottery funding is helping to improve the standard of cummunity sports facilities all over the country. Each year, our Annual Report contains an example of such a project from each English region. For instance, our 1999-2000 Annual Report highlights the case of the Betteshanger Social Welfare Scheme centre in the former East Kent coalfieldd. Although the centre was well-established, and met many of the local community's sporting needs, it was unable to meet growing demand—until a Lottery award (of £849,497) enabled it to provide four indoor bowling greens, greatly improved changing and social facilities, and a cricket room (with viewing balcony). Among other things, these improvements will increase the amount of mini rugby and junior cricket which can be played, enable more parents to watch and support their children, and make it easier for the centre to attract (and retain) new members—enhancing its status as a focal point for the local community.

  2.4  At the other end of the spectrum, Lottery funding is playing a key role in providing Manchester with world-class facilities for the 2002 Commonwealth Games—the biggest top-level sporting festival to be staged in Britain since the 1948 Olympics, and an event that will help to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Some of Manchester's new Games facilities have already been built, including the Aquatics Centre (made possible by a Lottery grant of £22.5 millione), while others are currently under construction (such as the City of Manchester Stadium—which will be the centrepiece of a new "Sportcity" regenerating a previously run-down area).

Helping our sports stars compete with the world's best

  2.5  As well as paying for "bricks and mortar" projects, the Lottery supports many of the sportsmen and women who represent England on the world sporting stage—or could do so in the future. Through its World Class programme, Sport England provides them with continuous and integrated support. The programme consists of:

    (i)  World Class Start, which assists sports' governing bodies, with Lottery revenue support, to find and nurture young performers (whose ages vary, according to their sport) with the right characteristics to achieve future World Class success;

    (ii)  World Class Potential, which provides Lottery revenue support to both sports and individuals, with the aim of developing talented performers who have the potential to win international competitions within the next 10 years; and

    (iii)  World Class Performance, which uses Lottery revenue to support activities at the highest level, so that our elite competitors can win top competitions and championships in the next six years.

  2.6  During the recent Sydney Olympics, many of those responsible for Britain's sporting successes emphasised that the Lottery-funded World Class programme (which only began in 1997) had made a major contribution to their achievements. For example:

    (i)  "Jason Queally [Olympic gold and silver medallist] is a fine example of the potential impact of the flow of National Lottery funding into Britain's non-commercial sports. For two years, Jason has been able to focus full-time on his training and development thanks to a Lottery grant. The coaches and support staff working in the background to prepare him are now paid professionals rather than dedicated volunteers . . . Jason Queally's success points the way forward for our Olympic sports—a clear connection between the Lottery buying British public and successful performers"—Peter Keen, performance director of the British Cycling Federation3.

    (ii)  "If it had not been for the [Lottery] funding, I wouldn't be in the sport. I was struggling to make ends meet as it was and I thought about giving up"—Yvonne McGregor, cycling bronze medallist4.

    (iii)  "Before the Lottery Fund started, I didn't even think about aiming for the Olympics, because I could never have afforded it. It changed everything and helped enormously"—Ian Barker, Sailing silver medallist5.

    (iv)  "The World Class performance plan has transformed athletics in terms of support. Before this we did well despite the system rather than because of it. Now we do well because of the system, and I'm sure it'll pay even greater dividends into the future"—Jonathan Edwards, triple-jump gold medallist6.

    (v)  "It has transformed British sport. It has been a godsend and made a huge difference... [But] what we have done the last few years since Atlanta is only what our rivals have been doing for the last 15 or 20 years"—John Trower, coach to Steve Backley, silver medallist in the javelin7.

    (vi)  "The Lottery money has started to make a difference and in the next four to eight years we will be right up there with the best"—Max Jones, performance director of UK Athletics8.

    (vii)  "The big difference between now and four years ago has been National Lottery funding"—David Tanner, British rowing team manager9.

    (viii)  "When you're competing against people who are full-time athletes, then racing as part of a team that is Lottery-funded makes a massive difference. Lottery money means we can take people who are talented at rowing and turn them into champions. We need it. So if the people who are in charge are listening, keep it coming"—Matthew Pinsent, triple Olympic gold medallist at rowing10.


Independent evidence of efficiency and effectiveness

3.1  Although we constantly strive to improve our performance, we welcome the independent evidence showing that Sport England has a good record as a Lottery distributor. Third-party surveys rate us highly for both efficiency and effectiveness. Last year, for example, Lottery Monitor magazine invited Lottery applicants to assess five distributors on the basis of their understanding of applicants' problems, the clarity of their information, and their efficiency—and, as in previous years, the results reflected well on Sport England, which came top in each category (with a particularly high rating, 89 per cent, for efficiency). Similarly, a recent Parliamentary Answer11 showed that Sport England spends considerably less of its Lottery income on administration than most other distributors.

  3.2  As well as seeking to be as efficient as possible, Sport England aims to ensure that its Lottery awards are as effective as they can be. The available evidence demonstrates that it is succeeding. First, a survey12 (conducted for the Millennium Commission) found that Members of Parliament have a high opinion of the extent to which projects funded by the sports distributors (such as Sport England) have brought real benefits to their constituents—with only the National Lottery Charities Board being rated more highly. In addition:

    (i)  "before" and "after" monitoring showed that Sport England's first 600 Lottery-funded projects generated substantial increases in facility usage: on average, the general level of usage more than doubled (from 3.6 to 8.1 million visits a year)—with attendance by women and young people rising even more sharply; and

    (ii)  independent research found that the amount of sports coaching at these facilities had almost doubled over the same period.

Highly rated by elite sportsmen and women

  3.3  Similarly positive results have been recorded in respect of Lottery-funded programmes for England's elite sportsmen and women (both able-bodied and disabled). In 1999-2000, a BMRB survey found that:

    (i)  most governing bodies believe that their sport's technical strategy and direction is being improved following the appointment of Lottery-funded coaching staff and Performance Directors;

    (ii)  international sports experts had detected a greater professionalism among, and improved performances by, Britain's Lottery-supported sportsmen and women; and

    (iii)  84 per cent of athletes—from whom there was a very good survey response rate—were "very" or "fairly" positive about the World Class Performance Programme.

  3.4  Most of the athletes surveyed rated their World Class support as "good" or "very good" in respect of coaching, training, international competition, and medical services. While the results for sports science and lifestyle management were less impressive, the majority of respondents still reported that they had improved discernibly over the previous two years. Overall, the results were highly encouraging for a programme that is less than three years old, and which is attracting increasing international attention.

  3.5  In response to athletes' previous comments—such as those made in de-briefing sessions after the 1998 Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpar—the programme is already being expanded to extend its depth, encompass more talented young performers, and introduce more scientific talent identification and development schemes. In addition, the lessons from such surveys and de-briefing sessions are being taken into account during the development of the English Institute of Sport.

  3.6  At the time of writing, Sport England has high hopes that our Paralympic competitors will emulate the success of their counterparts in the Olympics. Indeed, our Paralympians have also benefited from the World Class programme.

Long-term planning for a deep-rooted revival

  3.7  While there were substantial improvements in the performances of English competitors between the Atlanta and the Sydney Olympics, Sport England (in common with the other Sports Councils) has consistently emphasised the need for long-term thinking in order to produce a sustainable revival in our international sporting standing. Our long-term target was always to deliver substantial, Lottery-led improvements in time for the Manchester Commonwealth Games (in 2002) and the Athens Olympics (in 2004)—and at other major events thereafter.

  3.8  Sport England's commitment to long-term thinking is shown not only by the "Start" element of its World Class programme but by the work carried out in its "Active Schools" and "Active Sports" initiatives, which provide thousands of youngsters with opportunities to take part in sport and to receive sports coaching.

  3.9  In this context, Sport England recently gave a major boost to the next generation of British sports stars by funding and organising the Millennium Youth Games—involving over 250,000 twelve-to fifteen-year-old children and culminating in an Olympic-style Grand Final in Southampton. Without Sport England's Lottery income, this widely welcomed sporting event—the biggest of its kind in the world—would simply not have happened.


Speedier, simpler and less costly—but still accountable

4.1  Sport England wants to maintain and, where possible, improve on its record. In common with other Lottery distributors, it has already made a number of changes to the way in which it works: in particular, it has significantly reduced the costs, ironed out the complexities, and reduced the turn-around times previously associated with the process of applying for Lottery funds.

  4.2  Sport England made the first of these changes on its own initiative. However, further changes were necessary after the passage of the National Lottery Act 1998 which, among its other provisions, obliged Lottery distributors to consult all interested parties with a view to introducing simpler application procedures. Accordingly, in late 1998, Sport England conducted a consultation process which generated over 900 responsesf—making a particular effort to canvass the views of smaller groups, whose voices can often go unheard, and those whose Lottery applications had (for whatever reason) proved unsuccessful in the past.

Faster and more cost-effective: the new "two-stage" application process

  4.3  As a result of this consultation, and on-going monitoring, Sport England concluded that the Lottery funding process could be made faster, simpler and less burdensome—while still ensuring that the public's money is properly spentg. It duly introduced, in summer 1999, a new "two-stage" application process which involves less expense, more feedback, and quicker turn-around times than its predecessor.

  4.4  Unlike the original system, which required the provision of detailed (and sometimes costly) information at the initial stage, applicants now have to provide only limited facts and figures at stage one. Moreover, Sport England has introduced an improved pre-application advice service, as well as better post-assessment feedback for unsuccessful applicants. Firm response times have also been introduced: Sport England is committed to assessing all applications for less than £5,000 within 12 weeks, and all applications for over £5,000 (apart from the ones involving the largest sums) within 16 weeks. These commitments have been honoured in 93 per cent of cases (compared to 13 per cent before the two-stage process was introduced), with the remainder being delayed by the need to seek additional information from the applicants concerned.

Fairer awards, simpler procedures

  4.5  Improving the operation of the National Lottery is an on-going process, and the handling of Lottery applications was recently reviewed by the DCMS's Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team—QUEST. It concluded that the Lottery distributors had already achieved many of the Government's objectives: for example, it noted that the number of small Lottery grants awarded each month is now three times higher than in the first five years of the Lottery's operation, and it highlighted the substantial shift from capital to revenue funding13. In addition, the QUEST report—A Review of Lottery Application Processes—welcomed the initiatives that several distributors have undertaken to make the Lottery simpler, less bureaucratic, and more responsive to applicants' needs.

QUEST support for a Sport England initiative

  4.6  In the case of Sport England, the QUEST report highlighted the advantages of the "two-stage" application process: indeed, it recommended that other Lottery distributors should adopt a similar "two-stage" procedure.

  4.7  Sport England has already responded to the report, point-by-point, and has taken further measures to help achieve QUEST's objectives. For instance, we have put a number of case studies (both actual and illustrative) on our web site to show prospective Lottery applicants how their cases should (and shouldn't) be presented.


  5.1  The 1998 Lottery legislation also required each distributor to produce a strategy document explaining how it would meet the Act's broader requirements, such as:

    (i)  focusing Lottery expenditure increasingly on people (rather than only on buildings);

    (ii)  ensuring that a higher proportion of Lottery money is spent on relatively small-scale awards; and

    (iii)  taking account of areas' differing levels of economic and recreational deprivation.

Significant progress in putting the strategy into practice

  5.2  In fact, Sport England had already addressed the third of these challenges—uniquely among Lottery distributors—by introducing its Priority Areas Initiative (in 1995) to ensure that the needs of deprived communities were addressed. Our widely-welcomed 10-year Lottery strategy document, Investing for our sporting future (published in May 1999), explained how this Initiative could be improved, how other Lottery-funded sports projects could tackle social exclusion and, more generally, it set out the ways in which the Act's other objectives would be achieved.

  5.3  Considerable progress has been made in putting the different elements of the strategy into practice:

    (i)  strategy objective: to create a number of Sports Action Zones, in which (using its new powers of solicitation) it would pro-actively identify and assist areas of particular recreational deprivation;

      —  achievements to date: the first Sports Action Zones were designated in January 2000 (and the first eight Zone managers are already in post).

    (ii)  strategy objective: to create a Priority Groups Revenue Fund, to support projects (a) seeking to use sport as a means of tackling social exclusion and (b) aimed at addressing certain social groups' under-representation in sporting activity;

      —  achievements to date: this programme is scheduled to be introduced in April 2001.

    (iii)  strategy objective: to work with the New Opportunities Fund (and the DCMS) to appoint School Sports Co-ordinators, to bolster after-school activities, promote inter-school sports fixtures, and strengthen school-club links;

      —  achievements to date: the first 140 School Sports Co-ordinators took up their posts at the beginning of the new school year (in September).

    (iv)  strategy objective: to put a new emphasis on projects aimed at improving coaching at all levels; and

      —  achievements to date: through the Active Sports programme, 45 partnerships have been established, across the country, to help young people who have the ability and desire to improve their skills;

    (v)  strategy objective: to work with other Lottery distributors to create an "Awards for All" scheme, to provide small grants for small, local groups which had not previously been able to benefit from Lottery funding;

      —  achievements to date: to date, 4,337 awards (amounting to £13,705,439) have been made to English sports projects under this scheme.


Annual income down by £90 million

  6.1  Since the publication of Sports England's strategy, the pressures on the Lottery Fund have increased. For instance, local authorities are increasingly looking to the Lottery to help meet the estimated £3-4 billion cost of bringing England's sports centres and swimming pools (many of which date from the 1970s) up to scratch. At the same time, however, Sport England's annual Lottery income has been falling—by approximately £90 million in just two years.

Table Two


Share of net operator proceeds
Investment returns from NLDF

*Subject to confirmation

  6.2  Two factors have been responsible for the reduction in Sport England's Lottery income. First, after a period of higher-than-expected sales, fewer Lottery tickets are now being bought and, second, the creation of an additional "good cause", in 1998, has reduced the share of proceeds that the sports distributors receive. While we recognise the case for more Lottery money being devoted to education, health and environmental projects, through the New Opportunities Fund, the need for Lottery-funded sports projects has, over the same period, become even more apparent.

Implications of fast-falling income

  6.3  Clearly, any further reduction in Sport England's Lottery income could have serious implications for English sport. At a time when many communities' recreational deprivation is acute, falling ticket sales can only mean that a growing number of much-needed projects will not go ahead. Sport England has sought to ensure that this state of affairs is widely understood by prospective applicants for Lottery funding. In May, for example, at an event marking Lottery funding for English community sports projects passing the £1 billion mark, Des Wilson (who chairs Sport England's Lottery Panel) emphasised the increasingly difficult decisions that he and his fellow panellists are having to take. As he explained:

    (i)  many community organisations which could previously have expected a positive response to their applications will, in future, be disappointed—as the money to fund their proposals will no longer be available;

    (ii)  applicants from better-off areas will be particularly liable to receive a negative response, as Sport England is now required—not least by its Policy Directions from the Secretary of State—to prioritise economically and recreationally deprived areas; and

    (iii)  many of those planning major projects should no longer look to the Sport England Lottery Fund for assistance as, quite simply, it won't have the money to help.

Existing income fully committed

  6.4  In view of the circumstances outlined above, we have been frustrated to see repeated (and unfounded) Press suggestions that Sport England is "sitting" on substantial sums of unallocated Lottery money. Nothing could be further from the truth—and we are conscious that such reports have raised many applicants' expectations to unrealistic levels. In reality, all the money received by Sport England has already been spent, earmarked for successful applicants, allocated to on-going large-scale projects (like the English Institute of Sport), or awarded "in principle". Indeed, far from having a surplus, Sport England is currently—but manageably—over-committed, as a result of the sharper-than-expected fall in its income.

Welcoming extra money for new projects

  6.5  In recent months, we have warmly welcomed two announcements about extra money being made available for sport, in:

    (i)  first, the Comprehensive Spending Reviewa (and the subsequent announcement, by the Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, about the DCMS's spending plans); and

    (ii)  second, the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour Party conferencej in which he announced that substantial sums of Lottery income will, in future, be ring-fenced for new school and community sports projects.


Ideas for improving the Lottery's operation

7.1  Working with QUEST and the other distributors, Sport England will continue to improve the way in which it distributes Lottery funds—as it has done, in particular, since the introduction of the National Lottery Act 1998.

  7.2  While the Act has already led to some substantial improvements, Sport England has identified a number of areas in which further changes could—and, in our view, should—be made. We would welcome the Committee's thoughts and recommendations on:

    (i)  the possibility of further simplifying the Financial Directions that are applied to Lottery-funded projects, and introducing a graded scale of requirements—with the grades being related to the type of project and the proposed level of investment;

    (ii)  a possible relaxation of the rules on partnership funding, to "lever" in more private sector money alongside Lottery proceeds;

    (iii)  the possible introduction of a common tax (including Value Added Tax) regime across the distributors. At the moment, sport is treated less favourably than other "good causes" and is penalised by the outdated Recreational Charities Act 1958. Reform could make many of Sport England's Lottery grants, aimed at improving community sports clubs' facilities, go 17.5 per cent further; and

    (iv)  the possibility of Lottery distributors providing applicants with loans, rather than grants, in a limited number of cases—where the applicant can demonstrate that the loan could be repaid in the longer term.

The Committee's inquiry

  7.3  We hope this submission answers the Committee's questions about Sport England and its role as a Lottery distributor, but we would be happy to provide members with any further information they might find helpful—or to answer their questions in person.


  a See the comparative figures published by the Central Council of Physical Recreation.

  b The recent Comprehensive Spending Review announced increases in Exchequer spending on English sport from 2001-2002 onwards.

  c See, for example, The Value of Sport—published jointly by Sport England and the Local Government Association in 1999.

  d For further information on the Lottery and coalfield areas, please see Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery in the British Coalfields—a report by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University (March 2000).

  e Towards total project costs of £32.17 million.

  f In total, 905 responses were received. They came from local authorities (216), governing bodies (169), sports clubs (257), athletes (79), and "others" (186).

  g In preparing its recent report, A Review of Lottery Application Processes, QUEST commissioned a study which found widespread acceptance of the ways in which the different distributors ensure that Lottery proceeds are well spent. The report concluded that "a substantial majority of applicants, successful and unsuccessful, have found the application processes of the different distributors reasonable in their demands"—adding "most applicants do recognise the additional demands for accountability that Lottery funding requires" (pp. 6 and 16).

  h The total cost of making good quality sports facilities available to all parts of the country has been estimated at around £10 billion.

  i It has fallen from a fifth to a sixth.

  j In the Prime Minister's words: "Today we set out plans to invest £750 million of Lottery money in schools and community sport as part of a £1 billion investment over three years" (Brighton, 26 September 2000).


1   Colleges: The First Two Years, OFSTED, July 2000.
2  Staging International Sporting Events, May 1999, para 19.
3  London Evening Standard, 20 September 2000.
4  The Independent, 25 September 2000.
5  Western Mail, 26 September 2000.
6  Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2000.
7  The Guardian, 27 September 2000.
8  The Scotsman, 26 September 2000.
9  The Mirror, 25 September 2000.
10   Independent, 25 September 2000.
11  Hansard, 12 July 2000, Col. 482.
12  Hansard, 19 July 2000, Col. 212W.
13  A Review of Lottery Application Processes, QUEST, August 2000

October 2000

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 23 January 2001