Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 15
15
We received good evidence from a number of bodies about their experience of the fund...
Conclusion
We received good evidence from a number of bodies about their experience of the fund and the challenges they had faced. For example some had struggled with the language of the grant form, which seemed to be geared to the not-for-profit sector or larger organisations;36 and some unsuccessful applicants were disappointed with the feedback about why their applications were refused and the lack of an appeals process;37 Other successful applicants, were asked to prove their bank details on each payment instalment or to provide milestones for a diversity plan before receiving the grant.38 We asked the 28 Q 24, 25, 46 29 Qq 24, 46, 76 30 Q 78 31 Royal Albert Hall submission 32 Qq 46, 76 33 Qq 24, 76 34 Qq 75, 76 35 Qq 49, 76 36 Q 47; “#WeMakeEvents” submission, page 2; A V Matrix submission, pages 1–4; Written evidence submitted by Kirklees Council, page 1 37 Qq 20, 22; “#WeMakeEvents” submission, page 3; A V Matrix submission, pages 1–4 38 Q 49 12 COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund Department and ACE about these issues.39 The Department asserted that it had wanted to make the process of application as easy as possible and it had done what it could to make the guidance navigable. It told us arm’s-length bodies had given organisations time to get to grips with guidance and ran workshops for applicants to attend.40 ACE explained that it communicated with unsuccessful applicants about what they had failed on, but acknowledged its feedback had not been extensive, saying that it had to assess a large volume of applications in a very short time. ACE confirmed that it had no appeal process for its decisions about the fund.41 It also acknowledged that its counter-fraud measures meant recipients had to provide bank details for each instalment of their grant.42 The coverage and impact of the fund
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.