• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Press releases glow with news of sparkling new Lottery buildings opening, but the resounding silence that ensues if they fail to deliver their promise is deafening.
So three cheers to the National Audit Office ? a body which is totally independent of Government ? for publishing what amounts to the most useful case study every written about the (mis)handling of Lottery grants (p1). It must be pretty galling for the Arts Council of Wales to find itself so firmly in the spotlight, when similar debacles have taken place across the whole of the UK. The oh-so-public airing of ACW?s dirty linen when a new management team is now in place and about to embark on a major five-year strategy consultation must be particularly heart-breaking for them. The CVA case is now history, and we should all read and inwardly digest the chapter of catastrophic errors that turned the CVA dream to ashes. A 1999 NAO report about the monitoring of capital projects by the Arts Council of England had already raised a number of similar issues to those that led to the downfall of CVA.

There remain numerous unanswered questions and lessons for the future. Perhaps the most important for Wales, though, is why ACW decided not to claw back its Lottery funds when the CVA venture failed, as they are entitled to ? particularly when an audit of Wales? performing arts venues has just revealed that a capital injection of £60m is urgently required to support the country?s venue infrastructure (ArtsProfessional issue 12 p1).Maybe if funding bodies started to ask for refunds when Lottery projects turn pear-shaped ? just as the receivers extract every last penny for creditors from failed businesses ? then the dreamers who come up with ideas for new Lottery buildings might just extract their heads from the clouds that seem to impair their financial judgement. What is so special about publicly funded entrepreneurs that means they should be shielded from the financial implications of poor decision-making?