Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520
- 535)
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2000
MR STEPHEN
DUNMORE AND
MS VANESSA
POTTER
520. Could I go back again to this question.
For example, on cancer prevention, to try and say that it is not
part of the health service's responsibility, it is part of the
health service's responsibility. But the healthy living centres.
There is a very great difference between those two things. Healthy
living centres is something that is new. It is helping people
to realise that their lives can be fulfilled if they look after
themselves. But could you justify cancer prevention as not being
part of the health service's responsibility?
(Ms Potter) One of the interesting things on that
is that the programme we have just run was largely about prevention
and palliative care. Palliative care is clearly where the hospice
movement has been very active and has fund-raised a lot. A lot
of the discussion that certainly our Board had on that, was about
following the voluntary sector in that and trying to ensure that
what we were doing was concentrating on trying to learn new ways
of working, new ways of delivering palliative care, and slightly
focusing on the more innovative rather than focusing on the mainstream
which was being funded. Certainly the hospice movement is lobbying
very hard for more mainstream funding for palliative care generally.
What we have tried to do—and very much based on their advice
and consultations with the people who will be getting funding—is
to concentrate on specific areas. So what we did with the cancer
programme was concentrate specifically on ethnic minority communities,
who are a group that were highlighted throughout our consultations
as not being provided for by the mainstream. As Stephen said earlier,
what we are hoping is that we will evaluate with development,
with more positive models of working, and reach those communities
who are not being reached through a mainstream provision at the
moment. So it is a discussion that our Board had in detail.
521. I mentioned the public, the public views,
but they are not gullible. Would you not agree with me that if
the Lottery money is seen by the people who buy the tickets to
be submerged into the general funds by taxation—the incentive
that punters have, which is to try and win that dream, of winning
the Lottery, but the consolation of losing that money every week,
14 million to one, is not putting money down the drain but going
into a good cause—nevertheless, if that good cause is just
helping the Government to continue to slightly keep taxation down
below the level it should be at, do you not agree that there is
a danger that the public begin to think that they are really not
funding good causes by losing every week but they are helping
Government? Do you agree there is a danger there?
(Mr Dunmore) I do understand the point you make. Nonetheless,
I think that in our experience, if you ask the parents—indeed,
the children who are benefiting from out of school hours learning
or childcare projects—if you ask the people who are involved
in healthy living centre projects—indeed, even if you ask
the people who are benefiting from having an MRI scanner in terms
of cancer, which they did not have previously in their area, so
that they can get to it and have easy access to it—if you
ask all of those people, it does not matter to them who is funding
it. They are very pleased that that provision is there. Just to
go back to a point you made at the beginning, I have a sceptical
approach to opinion polls. Obviously it often depends on the questions
you ask, but the MORI poll that was carried out, that identified
health and education and environment as three of the top four
areas that people wanted to see Lottery spending allocated to,
that poll was an independent poll. It simply gave people a list
of areas where they might want to see the money spent. That was
the outcome.
522. I understand that. But I come back again:
it depends on the questions asked. If the public, (and they are
not gullible), realise that local authorities cannot fund the
areas that they used to be able to fund—flowers round the
roundabouts, making the whole of the place they live more attractive—if
local authorities cannot fund that, and the only source of income
is the Lottery for the quality of life, if then the public see
that money being taken and just being put into the general taxation,
who is going to make the place look brighter and the environment
improved? What worries me is that the income from the Lottery
is relatively small compared with total taxation. We are taking
bigger chunks of what should be used for improving the quality
of life, whether it be theatre or sport or whatever it is, but
we can get around that quite easily by asking the public, "Do
you want a swimming pool?" or "Do you want the health
service funded better?" If you ask them the question, "Do
you want swimming pools?" they will say, "Yes, we want
swimming pools." We are getting into a really dangerous area,
I feel. It is not a criticism of you but it is something on which
we really need to keep an eye. You have given some good answers
to the questions, we realise your hands are tied, but we must
not allow you to be restricted by Government policy.
(Mr Dunmore) May I say quickly that I think in many
ways we are getting into a very interesting area. What I find
fascinating about this whole process is the ability to work with
partners across a range of programmes—and some of these
may be statutory programmes such as with local authorities—what
I find very interesting is the ability to work with them, often
strategically, to put together packages of funding. I think that
is a real opportunity and a challenge. I would tend, myself, to
concentrate on those new opportunities which we now have, rather
than worrying excessively about the theological points about additionality,
which I appreciate is an important issue but which can absorb
too much time and concern—at least for us.
Chairman: It is partly the Government
we should be addressing these questions to but it is also our
guests here today because they have to make judgments as to whether
the additionality principle is being upheld. Now Mr Maxton and
I were involved in the last Parliament in inquiries into the Lottery
funding. Certainly I then was a very great stickler for the additionality
principle. Now, I have to confess, I am not so sure. When you
quote the MORI poll, about the areas in which people wish Lottery
money to be spent, I am sure that those polls are absolutely accurate.
I very much doubt whether any of our constituents here round the
table would get hung up on the additionality principle if they
felt that these very large sums of money available to the Lottery
were being spent on their central concerns. It may well be, (I
am not speaking for the rest of the Committee), although we have
to go and consider these matters when we consider our report,
but it may well be that the additionality principle has had its
day and provided that Government does not use the Lottery to invade
core funding, which would clearly be unacceptable, but it may
be the kind of thing that we get across in the United States,
where what one would call core programmes are being funded by
the Lottery, that this is the way forward for us; and that you
are, apart from the specific and valuable work that you are involved
in, a very useful thin end of the wedge. You are not going to
comment on that. In that case, I will call Claire Ward.
Ms Ward
523. The Lottery Commission, at the moment,
refuses to allow the operator to run games that are specifically
linked to any one of the good causes. So, for example, we cannot
have a scratchcard that says, "Buy this scratchcard and all
the proceeds from this will go specifically towards creating new
healthy living centres." Do you think this is wrong or would
you like to see it changed?
(Ms Potter) I think it would be very interesting.
I suspect it would probably be an issue that the Secretary of
State would comment on more fully than we would want to. Clearly
there are very mixed views. We heard last week colleagues from
the other Lottery distributors sitting here saying that X per
cent of the population supported what they did. They would all
make very valid cases for their work being funded. There is an
important issue and I think it is a challenge for all Lottery
distribution bodies, which is about having a responsibility to
sell what we do to the general public far more fully, and making
people far more aware of the very good work that is being done,
and trying to counter some of the confusion there is and lack
of understanding about that, which is being achieved through the
Lottery distribution boards.
(Mr Dunmore) May I add to that. I am tempted to say
it would be interesting to think about how that might work in
practice. It seems to me that it might end up being a way of identifying
where and how Lottery money should be spent. It might be quite
a chaotic process and difficult to interpret. It would also detract
from taking the strategic approach to targeting and allocating
money in certain areas and to certain programmes. My strong preference
is for the Government and Parliament to continue to make the decisions
as to how Lottery money is spent. That seems to me entirely appropriate.
524. It is not so much how it is spent and how
it is raised that I am interested in. What I am suggesting is
that there could be some flexibility to allow an operator to enlighten
the public about the good causes by linking it into the game.
At the moment, there is even some restriction upon using football
related games on scratchcards, because there would be a perception
that this would link a benefit into the sports fund and that is
restricted. What I am suggesting is that you might have a scratchcard
that had, "Scratch the card and find the schools. If you
find three schools to match, you win the money," but link
into people's minds that this is one of the areas in which the
pound you spend, a proportion goes directly towards an out of
school hours project.
(Ms Potter) Our main interest is actually maximising
the money available for good causes and clearly the way in which
that is done is probably more a matter for the licence holder
and the Lottery Commission. I think the point made is very, very
important. We would be very enthusiastic about working with the
licence holder in a much more strategic way to actually make more
of what good causes are achieving and I think any way that could
be done that was seen as an appropriate way of doing it and not
misleading the Lottery paying public we would be very happy to
take part in.
525. We have had suggestions from both sides
of the argument that people are not really interested (a) in who
runs lotteries and (b) in essentially where the money goes. The
reason why people buy a Lottery ticket is because they want to
win. Do you think there should be more links into good causes
with the Lottery through the operator?
(Mr Dunmore) I think it is a tricky area and it is
perhaps worth saying that, over the last year, we have had nothing
to do with Camelot because it would not have been appropriate
to do so. However, when we eventually get an operator for the
new licence, as my colleague said, it is an area which we would
be quite interested in exploring because I think there is some
synergy there, to use that terrible word, between the operator
and the distributors in terms of promoting the good causes, whilst
accepting that all the evidence does suggest, as one or two of
you have said, that people actually buy tickets to win, they do
not buy tickets because the money is going to good causes. I think
that, in terms of publicising and promoting our programmes and
indeed the good things that we are doing—the grants that
we have made and the projects that we have supported—there
are some possibilities.
526. Turning to another issue of promotion,
I have out of school hours clubs in my constituency which I am
led to believe are partly funded by the New Opportunities Fund.
If I went along to one of those and asked the parents who they
thought funds these, do you think I would get the right answer
and, if not, why not?
(Mr Dunmore) It is a question that is hard to answer.
I think that, on balance, you would get the right answer because,
when all of those grants were made, they would have had a great
deal of publicity in the local press. That is one of the matters
that we are particularly encouraged by in that, whereas we are
often criticised for reasons of, for example, additionality in
the National Press, our regional press coverage is magnificent
and there is a great deal of publicity there about the projects
that we fund. We also have agreements with the projects regarding
the ways in which they will actually themselves publicise and
represent to a wider world the fact that the project has been
funded by the New Opportunities Fund. So, apart from the difficulties
with the name which I acknowledge, I think there would be that
understanding and appreciation there, generally speaking.
527. Apart from press publicity, do you have
a corporate logo that you can stamp onto almost every child who
passes through the door?
(Ms Potter) Every project we fund will get a branding
pack depending on what the project is. For example, if there is
a capital project, they will have a large site board, which is
very unsubtle, if any of you have seen them. If there is a building
involved, they will have a plaque for the wall. For some of our
information, communication and technology programmes, we have
screen savers that come up with our logo and "Funded by the
National Lottery". We have mouse mats available for use in
public libraries and screen savers for the areas that are funded
in the public libraries. We also have a variety of baseball caps,
pens, pencils, balloons and lots of things that are used for the
children in particular, so we have a range of various branding
materials that go out depending on exactly what it is that we
are funding.
(Mr Dunmore) There is an interesting discussion to
be had about the balance between the branding of the individual
distributors and, if you have 13 or perhaps more different distributors
all doing their own branding, then it can become confusing and
there is perhaps something to be said for moving a little more
towards a brand which covers all the distributing bodies, a National
Lottery brand.
Mr Maxton
528. Regarding the MORI poll, was it a poll
of all people or was it just a poll of those who buy Lottery tickets
because there is a difference?
(Ms Potter) It was a general public poll; it is on
their omnibus survey.
529. That does make a little difference. Would
you agree with me that more important than additionality is specificity,
and I hate to use the word as I am sure the Chairman will tell
me off? In other words, it is important that the Lottery is used
to fund specific projects where people can clearly see where the
money comes from rather than it necessarily being additionally
or the danger is, as happens in some states in the USA, that it
just goes into general taxation funding and nobody knows where
it is actually spent.
(Mr Dunmore) I would accept that view and I think
it is very important that you should be able to see where your
Lottery money goes and the precise projects that it is being spent
on.
530. What co-operation do you have with the
other funding bodies because there are some areas of obvious overlap?
The out of school hours is an obvious one where presumably part
of that will be given over to sporting activities, playing football
or whatever it might be, during out of school hours care. Do you
work with the Sports Council to ensure that there are proper playing
fields? Do you encourage the out of school hours clubs to apply
for grants for perhaps extra equipment or whatever it might be
from the Sports Council or do you provide all that yourselves?
(Mr Dunmore) May I just paint a little background
for you as this may not be generally known. The distributors do
meet together on a regular basis: the chief executives meet once
a month and the directors of the various parts of the different
bodies also meet on a regular basis. We also all meet with the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport on a regular basis. There
is a great impetus at the moment towards joint working and I have
mentioned the joint web site and joint hot-line proposals. More
specifically, we work with other distributors in a variety of
different ways. For example, in terms of clarification of funding,
we have joint shared advice on our web site and the National Lottery
Charities Board web site about the interface between the programmes
that they fund and the programmes that we fund in an effort to
help people to understand the differences and indeed, where there
are overlaps, how we can actually work together, and out of school
hours learning is one example of that. We are also working very
closely with Sport England on our green spaces and sustainable
communities programme and indeed Sport England is one of the award
partners who will be delivering that programme on our behalf and
there is an element of that scheme that they are delivering which
is to do with playing fields. We think that is not so much overlap
as a good example of joint working because they can bring particular
expertise in sport and playing fields to the table. We bring over
expertise on the environmental issues and perhaps a little more
experience of joined up working and working in partnership. Another
good example of course will probably be the £750 million
which is proposed in the consultation paper for sport and PE in
schools. Sport England can fund sport obviously, but we can also
fund sport wearing our education hat, so we very much see that
£750 million being delivered again in very close partnership
working with Sport England, where they will bring particular skills
and expertise to the table and so will we.
531. What about healthy living centres? From
the information you have given us, it seems to me that there actually
is not enough emphasis. The only example you have given is the
walking example and there does not seem to be enough emphasis
upon exercise as part of healthy living, particularly for the
most disadvantaged 20 per cent. Do you work with Sport England
and the Sports Council in Scotland as well in terms of ensuring
that clubs/centres do have fitness equipment and so on in order
that people can keep fit?
(Mr Dunmore) That is actually quite a good example
because, in terms of the sports centres in Scotland and Sports
Scotland, we have issued joint guidance with them on our programmes
and particularly on out of school hours learning and healthy living
centres. To give you another example, the first healthy living
centre that we funded in a particularly deprived part of King's
Lynn was a healthy living centre proposal with the community development
work in the capacity building there and it was funding to a community
based organisation that was in the lead. That capacity building
work was funded by The National Lottery Charities Board, so I
think that gives another good instance of the way in which we
work with other funders.
(Ms Potter) Just to add to that, we have also tried
to use the regional structures that the Sports and Arts Councils
have to try and encourage greater understanding of the overlap
and integration of the programmes, particularly around the healthy
living centre programme, from the very beginning. What we tried
to do when developing guidance was to actually ensure that what
we were saying would help Sports and Art Councils to recognise
the benefits they have in health and involvement they could have
in promoting healthy living centres and we are seeing some very
interesting examples coming through.
532. Lastly, if I may turn to the information,
communication and technology area. I suppose this is really a
question for Government rather than for you, but is not the fact
that the training of teachers is funded by the Lottery rather
than core funding just yet another example of people believing
that education with computers and information technology is somehow
peripheral to it all rather than that this ought to be the absolute
core to the future of education in this country?
(Mr Dunmore) I would say that that certainly is not
the case. I think the Government now has a very co-ordinated and
strategic approach to promoting the use of ICT in schools and
indeed in terms of life-long learning through UK Online, so I
think it is very much now core to the Government's view of improving
educational standards. Taking your specific point about ICT and
training for teachers, the way that that initiative has been defined—and
I think we feel very comfortable with it—is that it is a
one-off catch up exercise and it is recognising that there are
a number of teachers out there who have been teachers for a long
time and did not come out of teacher training college with the
sort of qualifications that they need in the use of IT in the
classroom—that is no criticism, it is just the way the world
was in those days—and that they need to catch up with teachers
who are now coming out of college with those skills, so it is
very much a one-off catch up activity and continuing professional
development of those teachers once they are up to speed with the
help of our funding will very much be a matter for the Government
and for local education authorities and the schools themselves.
533. Is it training in the use of machines as
such or is it in the use of machines as education tools? They
are two very different issues and it seems to me that we still
have this tendency in education in this country to talk about
training people to use computers rather than using computers to
teach people.
(Mr Dunmore) You have very much defined the key characteristic
of the programme. It is not about the basic computer skills and
how to use the machine, it is very much about how you use those
skills to teach in the classroom very much linked to the curriculum
subjects and materials that go along with those curriculum subjects.
534. Or is it being used to develop new materials
for use as well?
(Mr Dunmore) Yes. Partly because of the approach which
we have adopted to this which is using a range of approved providers,
some of whom may be private sector providers, I think what has
happened is that we have very much stimulated the market, not
least in terms of the production of materials. Just to make that
clear, part of this is improving the skills of teachers but another
important part of it is the impact it will actually have on the
performance of children in the classroom and that is something
which we are working on alongside OFSTED to actually measure the
impacts of this particular scheme in terms of standards in the
classroom.
535. Does it include preparing teachers for
the fact that, in a very few years time, there will be facilitators
and not teachers?
(Ms Potter) We are beginning that discussion.
Chairman: As you will have seen, this
session has not only been valuable for the Committee in terms
of learning what you do but also it has raised quite fundamental
questions about how Lottery funding should be distributed and
because of that will be very valuable. We are most grateful to
you. I would like to wish you and everybody else in the room a
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
|
