On Thursday a small number of MPs gathered together in the House of Commons to discuss how important Lottery funding is for local charities. Tragically the debate disclosed the high levels of ignorance that certain MPs have for local charities,  but also how willing all MPs appear to be prepared to ignore one of the biggest and fattest elephants in the current Parliament. The Elephant in question is the National Lottery Refund which is a terrible story of how the Blair Government ‘borrowed’ £425m from Lottery funds set aside for good causes along with a further sum of £250m, both of which were used to help pay for the 2012 Olympics. This loan was strongly opposed by David Cameron and his fellow Tories and as a result the Government promised to repay the ‘loan’ at the end of the games which was nearly 2000 days ago. So far the repayment has not taken place and at some stage the House of Commons (involving both major parties) needs to be held to account for their denial of such important funding. If the £425m had interest applied at the same rate as student loans, it would today represent over £600m which could be applied to fund the sort of charities that Nusrat Ghani and her colleagues argued needed Lottery funding during their debate. I have written about the Big Lottery Refund on numerous occasions before, but the easiest way to understand it is by following this link to the story on the DSC website.

Regarding the ignorance of Nusrat Ghani when it came to local charities, this is what she had to say:

Does the Minister agree that national lottery funding should also be made available to smaller charities? Although they may help fewer people, in my constituency of Wealden there are very few options for vulnerable young and old people. In particular, clued-up.info in Crowborough helps teenagers; Sussex Oakleaf in Hailsham helps people with mental health issues; and the Now! Charity Group provides furniture for unemployed people and those on low income across East Sussex.

The ignorance on show is that of the three vital charities mentioned by Nusrat, all of which are important in the areas they operate, each of them is actually eligible for various Lottery Funds. They are all part of the 167,000 charities in England and Wales and Clued Up is the smallest of the three charities with an annual income of some £40,000. This compares to the largest group of charities in the nation which have much lower incomes than this. Nearly 77,000 have an income of less than £10,000! Now! Charity has an income of nearly £800,000 and Sussex Oakleaf has an income of over £3m which places both of them in the top 7% of English and Welsh charities. This range of charities represents over 11,000 organisations, but surely no one else would describe them as small charities?