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
(i) The National Lottery has become an indispensable
source of funding for sport at all levelssupporting 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 projectsgenerating 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 Olympicsincluding
Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Pinsenthave 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
(vii) On average, Lottery-funded sports
projects have doubled levels of facility usageand 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 waygiving 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 fundingoften 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 proposalson
which we would welcome the Committee's viewsto 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
implementedincluding 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 fundingand why it is
vital that sport should continue to be a "good cause".
1. THE LOTTERY'S
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 womenable-bodied
and disabledto 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 standingas 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"
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 becomingand remainingone 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 facilitiesand almost
three-quarters are in favour of Lottery support for elite and
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 wholeas 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 offencesand,
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;
(iii) providing children with a well-rounded
educationas 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
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.
2. HOW SPORT
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 distributedthrough our Lottery Panelwell
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 sourcesmuch 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.
SPORT ENGLAND LOTTERY FUND: COMMUNITY CAPITAL
|Months of awards||66
|Projects funded to date||3,223
|Total awarded to date||£1,166,864,376
|Total project costs to date||£2,115,291,954
|Number of English counties covered||All
|Number of sports covered||62
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 demanduntil 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 membersenhancing
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 Gamesthe 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 Stadiumwhich will be the
centrepiece of a new "Sportcity" regenerating a previously
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 stageor 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 sportsa 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
(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.
3. SPORT ENGLAND'S
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 efficiencyand, 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 constituentswith
only the National Lottery Charities Board being rated more highly.
(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
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 athletesfrom whom there was
a very good survey response ratewere "very" or
"fairly" positive about the World Class Performance
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
3.5 In response to athletes' previous commentssuch
as those made in de-briefing sessions after the 1998 Commonwealth
Games in Kuala Lumparthe 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 Gamesinvolving 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 eventthe
biggest of its kind in the worldwould simply not have happened.
4. IMPROVING THE
Speedier, simpler and less costlybut 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 responsesfmaking
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"
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 burdensomewhile 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
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
TeamQUEST. 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 reportA
Review of Lottery Application Processeswelcomed the
initiatives that several distributors have undertaken to make
the Lottery simpler, less bureaucratic, and more responsive to
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)
5. SPORT ENGLAND'S
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 challengesuniquely among Lottery distributorsby
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
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
(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.
6. LEVELS OF
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 fallingby approximately
£90 million in just two years.
SPORT ENGLAND: DECLINING LOTTERY INCOME
|Share of net operator proceeds||£268.189m
|Investment returns from NLDF||£34.735m
*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 disappointedas 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
requirednot least by its Policy Directions from the Secretary
of Stateto prioritise economically and recreationally deprived
(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
truthand 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 currentlybut manageablyover-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.
7. LOOKING TO
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
fundsas 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 couldand, in our view, shouldbe
made. We would welcome the Committee's thoughts and recommendations
(i) the possibility of further simplifying the Financial
Directions that are applied to Lottery-funded projects, and introducing
a graded scale of requirementswith 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
(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
(iv) the possibility of Lottery distributors providing
applicants with loans, rather than grants, in a limited number
of caseswhere 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 helpfulor to answer their questions in
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 Sportpublished
jointly by Sport England and the Local Government Association
d For further information on the Lottery and coalfield areas,
please see Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery in
the British Coalfieldsa report by the Centre for Regional
Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University (March
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
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,
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,