11
Rejected
The Department had considered that the end of September 2020 represented a cliff- edge for...
Conclusion
The Department had considered that the end of September 2020 represented a cliff- edge for the sector, with many organisations in the sector likely to run out of money and close permanently if support was not available by then.27 We therefore questioned the Department about its timetable and whether it had been over-optimistic in trying to distribute funding by September. The Department accepted that it had made changes to its plans “mid-flight”, and acknowledged that it had revised its target for making decisions 19 Q 37; C&AG’s Report, para 2.16 20 Qq 43, 44 21 Qq 38, 39 22 Q 45 23 Q 38 24 Qq 36, 39 25 Qq 31, 36, 72 26 Q 72 27 Q 24, C&AG’s Report, para 8 COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund 11 and awards to October.28 It said it had been concerned about some sectors that needed funding much more quickly, and pointed to its scheme supporting 136 grassroots music venues which opened, closed and paid out funding in August 2020. It told us that its arm’s-length bodies had also offered emergency support for organisations that could not wait. It said the main reason not all of the funding for round one had gone out was that payments were made in instalments.29
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's implied criticism regarding the pace and streamlining of the Culture Recovery Fund, asserting that the fund was delivered quickly while balancing proper allocation of taxpayer money and reducing fraud risk.
Government Response
Rejected
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
3.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 3.2 Firstly, on the point concerning streamlined funding processes and demands on applicants, the Culture Recovery Fund (CRF), characteristic of all COVID-19 pandemic funding, was delivered at pace and at unprecedented scale to provide emergency relief to a sector in severe economic distress. However, the need to ensure that money was distributed quickly needed to be balanced with factors such as ensuring proper allocation of taxpayers’ money, reducing the risk of fraud, and the need to provide a high-quality service to people who interacted with the programme. 3.3 The funding process for CRF was made as streamlined as possible in order to fulfil the core policy aims of the fund, and the conditions on the funding determined by government ministers. In DCMS’s view, any further streamlining or reduction in the grant making process would have put at risk the propriety of the fund’s delivery.
Source
Committee
Public Accounts Committee
Inquiry
COVID-19: Culture Recovery Fund
Report
Eighth Report - COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund
23 Jun 2021
HC 340
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
5.1 yrs
Report published
23 Jun 2021