Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 3
3
In implementing the fund during the pandemic, the Department’s need to act quickly to provide...
Recommendation
In implementing the fund during the pandemic, the Department’s need to act quickly to provide funding to applicants while also protecting taxpayers’ money meant some applicants’ experiences could have been better. The Department announced the fund in July 2020, with the intention to pay successful applicants by the end of September 2020. While officials should be credited for working at speed and delivering a programme with low fraud levels, mistakes were made, particularly in relation to the fund’s accessibility. For example, the language used on the grant forms were not well geared to commercial organisations; the Department had intended that the money would be distributed more quickly, unsuccessful applicants did not receive clear feedback to understand why their bids were rejected, and recipients faced continuing requests for information such as proof of bank details for each instalment of a grant, resulting in unnecessary duplication of documents. Recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response, the Department should set out what more it is doing to communicate with those who were unsuccessful in 6 COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund securing funding and streamline its funding processes to cut out any unnecessary demands on recipients that slow down funding, consistent with protecting taxpayers’ money from fraud.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
3. PAC conclusion: In implementing the fund during the pandemic, the Department’s need to act quickly to provide funding to applicants while also protecting taxpayers’ money meant some applicants’ experiences could have been better. 3: PAC recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response, the Department should set out what more it is doing to communicate with those who were unsuccessful in securing funding and streamline its funding processes to cut out any unnecessary demands on recipients that slow down funding, consistent with protecting taxpayers’ money from fraud. 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. 3.4 Secondly, on feedback, the provision of very detailed feedback to all unsuccessful applicants gives rise to an immediate opportunity cost by taking effort away from the delivery of funds to successful applicants, and can lead to delays particularly when DCMS ALBs are delivering an unprecedented scale of funding at pace. 3.5 After the delivery of CRF1, some adjustments were made to feedback, such that applicants received slightly more detail (specifically - Arts Council England increased the level of feedback provided to unsuccessful applicants). In CRF2, all unsuccessful applicants were either provided with specific reasons why their application had been rejected, with reference to the criteria they had not met, or further information was available on request. In DCMS’s view, the level of feedback being provided during CRF2 was right in the context of needing to prioritise the delivery of an emergency economic response.