Author: Locality

Read the full report – Saving money by doing the right thing

At a time of austerity cuts and mounting demand, the challenge for communities and the organisations that serve them has never been greater. How do we ensure that key public services meet people’s needs and support the development of communities we all want to live in?

 The response by some government departments and local authorities to this challenge is clear – they feel that savings can be made by standardising community services and up-scaling local delivery to multi-million pound contracts, delivered by multi-million pound organisations. While this approach has had some major high profile set-backs, the underlying assumption – that the difficulties facing the funding of public services will be met through scale and standardisation – is not being challenged.

Locality and Vanguard have been working together to examine the issues and are able to demonstrate that big services and scale are incredible wasteful and damaging to local communities.

This report is the most comprehensive study ever carried out on the demand placed on public services in the UK and the impact of up-scaling contracts on community based services. The findings in this report are based on the cumulative results of hundreds of in-depth studies into hundreds of thousands of demands placed on the public and third sectors in the UK over the past three years.

It is the first study of its kind to discriminate between artificial demand for public services – generated only as a result of an organisation not taking the right action – and the real demand experienced by the person who needs help. The two main causes of increasing demand, discovered empirically in the studies, are the belief in ‘economies of scale’ and the belief in the standardisation of services. Together, these beliefs prevent organisations from understanding and meeting people’s needs.

The extent of failure demand is enormous (‘demand caused by a failure to do something or do something right for the customer’, John Seddon, 2003). Vanguard analysis suggests that it accounts for 80% of demand into health and social care services. In Melvyn’s case, (a 75 year old ex-miner with health problems) this meant 29 separate assessments, by 30 teams, in seven agencies, over two years without having his health and social care needs met. Melvyn’s life changed from one of independence, to a confusing and frustrating experience over which he struggles to have any control.

The effects of scale principles on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people helped by local third sector organisations (TSOs) are described in the report. The belief that ‘economies of scale’ are achieved by commissioning large public sector contracts has a number of damaging consequences, with no increase in efficiency.

Author: Planning Democracy

For those of you who have had the NIMBY term thrown at you for daring to challenge a development proposal, DIMVI is the term you can now use to respond to those who clearly have their own development interests at heart.  Read on!

I have been reading some of the responses to the Planning Bill. Apparently, there have been over 800 sent in from a wide range of people and organisations, so many that they are not all up on the Parliament website yet. Many of the respondents are familiar to us now and you would be surprised not to see some such as the Heads of Planning or local authorities. However, some are less familiar. Pagoda Porter Novelli was one such name, which, when I saw it, made me wonder if the Planning Bill was suddenly of interest to some South Indian Buddhists or whether this was an Italian architectural firm specialising in temple construction.  I was curious to read in their opening title that they were community engagement specialists. However, it didn’t take long to discover exactly what kind of community engagement they specialised in; the type that helps “to deliver approval for planning Applications” rather than the empowering people to identify shared aspirations type. I was more and more curious about this submission, especially when it said they had conducted a survey of local authority councillors. Not least because it is very interesting how the results of this survey were discussed, you know, for an organisation specialising in community engagement.

My first question was why focus your survey on councillors and not the general public if your business is public consultation? There was very little discussion of the responses to the questions about barriers to engagement that the company had put into their survey (apparently needlessly replicating the Government’s own Barriers to Engagement research which attracted a huge response, written about in a previous blog post). There was a somewhat cursory set of bullet points summarising the different answers (I hope their consultation exercises contain a little more detailed analysis than this attempt). The survey also apparently had questions regarding ‘third party’ rights of appeal. Apparently 49% of the councillors supported while ‘some’ 28% didn’t and 16% were undecided (there is no mention of the what the remaining 7% thought). Unlike the subject of barriers to engagement, this prompted a somewhat one sided discussion about the negative implications of appeal rights (which rather begs the question why they mentioned the survey results at all, bearing in mind the pro’s outweighed the anti’s). A rather random and unevidenced set of reasons were put forward as to why Equal Rights of Appeal were not a good idea including the default scaremongering classic “it would likely increase the cost of new homes to first time buyers”. (Really, can you show us the analysis on that one please?)

Just as an aside, on the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage, I was looking at some of the arguments used against women gaining voting rights. The opposition to women’s right to vote made some pretty scandalous claims which now seem rather ludicrous but were taken seriously at the time. Examples include that women were child bearers and that would stop them from taking part in political life and that would be a threat to the British Empire and the whole human race. Others declared that giving women suffrage would “cause irreparable damage at great expense to the state.” Rather hyperbolic don’t you think?

Anyway, I needed to check out just who Pagoda were to be making such overstated arguments against equality themselves. It turns out this company are a PR firm, whose community engagement is not necessarily in the community or indeed public interest. In fact, this organisation are not apparently even interested in promoting a plan led system, let alone an inclusive one. This is how they describe one of their consultation projects

“Helensburgh was one of the last towns in Scotland without a supermarket. However, plans for a new Waitrose food store faced resistance from local retailers especially. The site wasn’t zoned for retail, and there were concerns that the edge-of-town location would have a negative impact on Helensburgh’s thriving town centre. Our role was to help Waitrose gain planning approval.”

Such companies have been around for a while. The journalist Anna Minton recounts one story of a firm employed to promote the high speed rail project HS2 talking about being employed to “shit them up”. Them being any opponents who were presumably being maligned as NIMBY’s.

And I thought to myself should companies like this be allowed to respond? Who checks out their ‘evidence’ as none of their claims are backed up by any references or sources. Clearly these kind of firms represent their own vested interests and those of the clients that pay them, whilst also somewhat disingenuously claiming to represent the community interest by describing themselves as community engagement specialists.

So, for those who purport to be working in the public interest when in fact they have their own interests at heart, I hereby label you DIMVI’s.

Development is In My Vested Interest.

I suggest that individuals and organisations of this nature should be forced to add a cautionary notice to their responses.

‘Notification alert! This response contains arguments put forward by a DIMVI’

NB: We will be giving oral evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee on the 28th February at 9.30am in Committee Room 4. You can come and support us in the public gallery if you wish. Read our written submission here. It is helpful to show a good presence in the public gallery during all of the LGCC evidence sessions on all the dates – 28th Feb, 7th, 14th & 21st March. If you can make any of these, call the Parliament to book a place (can only be done one week in advance, via Visitor Services, Switchboard on 0800 092 7500 or 0131 348 5000).

Author: Pauline Hinchion, Scottish Communities Finance Ltd (SCF)

Community Bonds: Allowing ordinary people to invest in the economic future of their communities.

The political noise about the closures of banks, often the only ones left in communities, has been getting louder recently.  But the reality is that the systematic closing of banks has been a feature of our lives for at least ten years. So, there is some research around that has looked at the effects of bank closures upon communities.  Although the media has tended to focus on the impact on local people who can no longer get local access to their cash, the impact for local businesses and the local economy is also stark.

According to research by ‘Move Your Money’, communities without a bank lose 104% of lending growth, meaning that the major banks are withdrawing money from those areas, rather than lending and helping them to be sustainable. On average, communities that lose their last bank suffer a drop in lending of around £1.6 million, a significant and damaging economic loss to any community.

Even in communities where a bank still exists, the reality for most micro and small business is extreme difficulty in accessing affordable finance, particularly in the ten years since the financial crash. According to ‘Small Business’ the last five years has seen a drop of 37 % in the value of overdrafts provided to SMEs.  It states that ‘without access to overdrafts, SMEs have less capital with which to expand current operations, invest in new assets or trade through tough times’

The result of this loss of lending can often be business failure; job losses; lack of job opportunities and a decrease in the availability of local products and services making our communities less attractive places to live and work. 

However, people do not have to passively accept this scenario and local people can play a role in lessening the impact of bank closures, by becoming investors in their own communities.  Community Bonds allow local people to invest in their community.  The money raised from the bonds can be used to set up a community loan fund that can lend money to local organisations and businesses thereby assisting them to continue to grow and trade.

The aim of SCT Ltd is to assist Scotland’s place-based communities and thematic communities to become more viable and more vibrant. Encouraging ordinary people to reinvest back into their communities – by pooling their financial resources into a community loan fund and lending this out to local, social and community enterprises – helping them to become more sustainable.

SCF Ltd, a community benefit society registered with the FCA, works with communities to issue Community Bonds that can be purchased by individuals and organisations. The money raised will then be used to establish bespoke Community Loan Funds, tailored to suit the needs of that community.

Purchasing Community Bonds is about making an investment in your local community. Becoming a Community Investor shows your support for your community and encourages regeneration, local job creation, vibrant local facilities and a diverse economy.

SCF Ltd is looking for other communities that might be interested in establishing a Community Loan Fund.

For more details, contact SCF on 07934 690429 or email info@scotcomfinance.scot. See

www.scotcomfinance.scot.

Author: Karin Goodwin The Herald

THE TREES whisper in the wind as sunshine filters through the branches, dappling the forest floor. A robin flutters, a nearby stream burbles while you sit back and contemplate your surroundings. This is forest bathing, or Shinrin Yoku, a Japanese “green prescription” with proven benefits to both physical and mental health, now making waves – or at least rustling leaves – in a woodland near you.

Experts claim Shinrin Yoku – a term which translates literally as forest bathing – is about recalibrating our sense of wellbeing by tapping into our innate connection with nature, all too often missing in our time-pressured 21st century lives.

The “immersive experience” involves slow and relaxed walking in the forest, meditation and honing in on sights, smells, sounds and tastes in the restorative woodland environment.

Introduced by the Japanese government on prescription in the eighties to deal with an epidemic of stress and anxiety, studies have shown it lowers blood pressure, pulse rate, levels of stress hormone cortisol and heart rate. The findings are backed by a growing body of research that shows green exercise improves physical, emotional and mental health. Moves to promote “nature prescriptions” – from walking groups to outdoor meditation – have been growing in recent years.

Caitlin Keddie, founder of Forest Therapy Scotland, believes she is currently the country’s only practitioner offering group-based Shinrin Yoku, after completing a course offered by the American Association of Nature and Forest Therapy Guides and Programs last year.

Keddie, a former manager of herbalist Napiers Glasgow, has so far held most of her forest bathing events in accessible woodlands in the central belt, though others have been held across Scotland from Aberfeldy to Inverness-shire. She is hosting an afternoon event in Glasgow’s Pollok Park today.

She said: “The Japanese Government started promoting it in the eighties but of course lots of cultures have been doing it for a very long time. It’s part of our own culture, going way back when you look at the Celts and the Picts and the connection they had with nature. It’s both new [here] and not new at all.”

The events, which are between 90 minutes to three hours long, include a slow paced immersive walk – no rushing allowed – and a guided meditation to help ensure people are more responsive to their surroundings.

“Then there is the forest bathing itself, when you find a place to sit for 20 minutes or so and soak it all up,” she said. “At the end we do a Japanese-style tea ceremony, with a foraged herbal tea that I’ll collect on the walk and there is a chance to share our experiences – anything goes. We’ve seen all sorts of people – elderly and kids, people with mobility issues or those who regularly walk their dogs but do so while on their phones and keeping to the paths. The other week we went out in the snow and we saw deer, and a little robin hung out with us. It can be a real eye-opener.”

Julie Procter, director of charity Greenspace Scotland, said it was time to take the benefits of time spent in nature seriously in order to reap the health benefits. In 2016 a survey suggested that three-quarters of British children spent less than an hour outside playing each day.

“In our time-pressured world people don’t always make time to get out and explore nature,” she said. “People can feel silly doing this sort of thing on their own, so it can be nice to do it as part of a group.”

She claimed that fear of the woods could also be a factor, with cautionary fairy tales from Red Riding Hood to Hansel and Gretel a part of our “national narrative”.

“It’s time to change that,” she said. “What we find is that if we spend time in the woods our children we are more likely to do so as adults. If getting some support to feel safe and confident helps that has to be a good thing.”

Kevin Lafferty, health and recreation advisor for the Forestry Commission Scotland, claimed much of the organisation’s focus was on creating a space where people could find sanctuary and recover from “mental fatigue”.

He said: “Hard science shows that there’s a clear, physical, social and mental health benefit. There is a lot of work to show that humans need to have regular contact with the natural environment. It’s a need that has developed over millennia. It’s not woolly tree-hugger stuff. It can really effect mood and counter the rise of stress and anxiety.”

Peter Rawcliffe, People and Places Manager for Scottish Natural Heritage, said that doctors were increasingly recommending a “dose of nature” as part of a preventative approach to health.

“The Japanese experience suggests that forest bathing helps more people to enjoy the health benefits of being outdoors, which is something we’re keen to see more of in Scotland,” he added.

A dose of the green stuff

Organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission Scotland are increasingly working with the NHS to encourage doctors to prescribe time in nature as part of a healthy life style. “Prescriptions” include:

1. Time in the woods: “Branching-out” groups are available on referral and run in forests around Scotland offering meditation, bushcraft, tai chi and conservation tasks for those with mental health issues.

2. Taking a walk: GPs are referring patients to walking groups and encouraging them to pace the local parks.

3. Therapeutic gardening: research shows helping things grow as part of a group can reduce depression, loneliness, anxiety and stress.

4. Green gym sessions: provides conservation volunteering opportunities with a focus on physical health and wellbeing.

How to “forest bathe”:

1. Find a place in nature that you love to be. Stop for a while and if you feel comfortable, close your eyes.

2. Focus on your breathing and take in your surroundings with your different senses, taking your attention from smell, to touch, to taste, to sound.

3. Finally open your eyes and look around you.

4. Walk slowly through the woodland, allowing yourself time to stop and look closely at everything from trees to lichens, birds and insects.

5. Find a “sitspot” – a wild place you can visit regularly for at least 20 mins each time, returning throughout the seasons.

Author: Clare Goff, New Start

Full report here

The New Local Government Network has produced a new report to help councils assess their organisational culture and help bring about cultural change.

Culture Shock: Creating a Changemaking Culture in Local Government sets out four ideal culture types. The most dominant cultural type found in councils currently is that of a ‘hierarchical’ culture, with control and efficiency at the forefront. Also present across UK councils is a ‘market’ culture, which is focused on competitiveness and profitability.

But as councils deal with greater complexity, including rising demand, shrinking resources and shifting public expectations, they need to develop cultures more attuned to these times, the report says.

NLGN calls for councils to shift their cultures towards those of ‘clan’ and ‘adhocratic’ types which enable a changemaking culture to emerge within the organisastions.

‘Clan’ culture focuses on greater collaboration and is driven by better communication, human development and participation, while ‘adhocracy’ is defined by creativity, innovation and agility.

The report suggests that councils can shift their cultures in either direct, big bang ways or in indirect, incremental ways.

It cites Wigan Council as an example of an authority taking a ‘direct, big bang’ approach to culture change through its Wigan Deal. The Wigan Deal is a co-produced recalibration of the relationship between the council and its community, with the council committing to eight goals including keeping council tax low and being ‘open, honest and friendly’ while residents are also asked to commit to their own eight goals including keeping healthy and active and supporting local businesses. There are also further deals related to business, social care and children’s services, and staff at the council are expected to embrace three co-produced values.

The council claims that the Deal has already played a significant part in bringing down its costs while also seeing its performance increase across a number of areas. It is now the seventh highest performing council in the country.

Stockport council is identified as an authority making an indirect, incremental approach to culture change through new working practices implemented in two different teams.

Read the full report here.

Author: Prof Cliff Hague

How and why has 70 years of planning benefited Scotland? With a Bill to reform the planning system now before Holyrood, this question is timely. Planning is not just about contesting your neighbour’s conservatory; it has long-term impacts on our towns and countryside, conservation of natural resources and well-loved places, the way we live our lives and our children’s future. That is why changes to our planning system should be given careful scrutiny inside and outside parliament.

 If there had been no planning system, Scotland’s iconic landscape would have looked very different. There would have been ranch houses around the banks of Loch Lomond, mega billboards lining roadsides in the Trossachs, shopping malls (some now derelict) dotted along the M8, and any number of coastal sites ravaged by onshore oil-related development during the 1970s frenzy.

Edinburgh doubled in area in the 20 years between the wars. The bungalows, that had reached Fairmilehead, the Maybury and Portobello, would have marched ever onwards and outwards, replacing farms and woodlands, with executive mansions grabbing prime spots on the Pentland Hills to command views over the city and across the Forth. Unable to serve this low-density spread, bus services would have been poorer, to the detriment of the mobility of children and older people, for example.

The new towns would not have existed. As traditional industries like oil shale went into terminal decline, places like Livingston and East Kilbride helped restructure Scotland’s economy. We would be poorer without them. Disinvestment from the urban cores and inner cities could have left parts of Clydeside looking like inner Detroit. What developer ADVERTISEMENT would invest in remediation of a former industrial site if there was the nice easy option of a green field not far away?

Similarly, Edinburgh’s Old Town would have continued its pre-war trajectory towards rack and ruin, while the New Town would have been degraded by speculative investors jostling to dominate the skyline with their offices and hotels.

Planning is not just a matter of aesthetics – it can steer investment to vacant and derelict sites before agricultural land is forever sacrificed, conserving greenspaces and finding new uses for older buildings such as in Glasgow’s Merchant City. If this “holds back economic growth”, then it holds back the wrong kind of “growth”, to give priority to social inclusion, environmental protection, climate change mitigation, place identity and food security.

Planning worked as a public service, created to serve the public good. It didn’t get everything right: in the 1960s in particular, it needed corrective voices provided by civic society through the Cockburn Association or the New Glasgow Society. Yet the ethos and moral compass that inspired the best of Scottish planning has withered as the system has become more centralised, more attuned to the demands of developers, and so more removed from being a vital part of local democracy.

As research commissioned by the Scottish Government revealed in 2017, there is now a deep and fundamental lack of trust in the planning system among members of the public who have engaged with it.

The Planning Bill now before parliament was an opportunity to address this corrosion, and to design a world-class planning system for Scotland. Sadly, it shows no such ambition. Rather, it seeks primarily to make the planning system a vehicle for more and faster delivery of planning permissions for housing. Provision of houses has been contracted out to the large building companies, who work for their shareholders and pay their executives eye-watering bonuses. They build not when they get a planning permission, but when it suits their business model.

To “balance” new provisions for which developers lobbied, the Bill allows “a community body”, such as a community council, to prepare a local place plan (LPP) for “the development and use of land”. However, any LPP must “have regard to” the National Planning Framework (essentially the Scottish Government’s plan for where major developments should, or should not, go), and also the council’s Local Development Plan (which may have been amended by the Scottish Government Minister or overtaken by the National Planning Framework). In addition, the Local Development Plan must have taken account of the “local outcomes improvement plan” for the area. Typically this is a set of generalised statements agreed by the Community Planning Partnership, whose members are usually officials of the council and other public bodies such as Police Scotland.

Such public agencies themselves have morphed into speculative developers as they seek to capitalise their land and property holdings to fund their services. So as long as the “community body” wants the same things that are already set out in these multiple plans, its members can give their spare time, or raise funds to hire consultants, to produce their own LPP, provided they comply also with any requirements about its form, content and preparation prescribed by the council or Government.

Good luck with that! The Scottish Government has resisted all calls to redress the imbalance that exists in the system of planning appeals. A developer can appeal against the refusal of planning permission, and against any conditions imposed as part of a consent, even though the decision of the planning authority has to be based on policies in the development plan. The matter then passes out of the hands of the local council. Costs may be awarded against them if they lose the appeal, a sobering prospect for officials and councillors already struggling in difficult financial times.

Meanwhile a “third party”, such as a civic organisation, has no right of appeal if a planning permission is granted, even if the decision runs against what is in the plan. To be accessible to all, a planning system needs to be simple, clear and predictable; anything else favours those able to afford expensive lawyers and an array of professional consultants.

Scotland needs a planning system that delivers not just development and housing numbers, but quality in new and existing environments, a sense of belonging. Restoring public confidence would reduce stress and enhance well-being. It can be done.

Author: Nourish Scotland

Click here how to run a Kitchen Table Talk

The Scottish Food Coalition launched their public engagement on the Good Food Nation Bill today. The Kitchen Table Talks engagement will explore public priorities for a good food nation in preparation for the Government’s consultation.

Pete Ritchie, Executive Director at Nourish Scotland and Co-Convenor of the Scottish Food Coalition said:

“Becoming a Good Food Nation requires a whole of Government and whole of society approach. It stretches from social justice and health, to rural economy, environment, land reform and climate change.

“The Government’s consultation is expected to begin later in 2018. For truly transformative legislation we need the voices of people across Scotland to shape the whole process.”

Vicki Swales, Head of Land Use Policy at the RSPB Scotland and Co-Convenor of the Scottish Food Coalition said:

“We expect to have over 300 Kitchen Table Talks hosted across Scotland in the next 10 weeks. Everyone is invited to participate – whatever your relationship to food is: we all have a stake in the future of our food system”

Angus Hardie, Director at the Scottish Community Alliance said:

“Kitchen Table Talks are a brilliant way to let Government know what we think about our food system. They can happen anywhere – in your village hall, down the pub, in your favourite cafe or even at your kitchen table. Let’s get talking!”

Author: DTAS

The Scottish University Land Unit (SULU) has been set up to encourage law students across Scotland to take an active interest in land reform, community empowerment, and community rights in respect of land; and, working in partnership with the Development Trusts Association Scotland (DTAS) and the Community Ownership Support Service (COSS), to provide practical support to community bodies looking to exercise these rights.

Fundamentally, this is intended to be a two-way relationship which, on the one hand, gives DTAS/COSS access to the unparalleled wealth of legal knowledge and research skills that law students have while, on the other hand, giving students an opportunity to learn from DTAS/COSS experience in this area, and gain an invaluable insight into how the land reform/community empowerment agenda works in practice.

Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interest for tomorrow’s lawyers to take on board the principles of land reform/community empowerment, and to be well versed in both the letter and spirit of the legislation. It is hoped that partnership working between DTAS/COSS and SULU will positively contribute to this.

Author: SMSA

What is a Men’s Shed?

In a nutshell, a Men’s Shed is a permanent meeting place where lots of good community and healthy ‘self and group determined’ experiences take place. They take place by ‘everyday’ people with ‘time on their hands’ willing to act with the skills they already have within their local community.

The ‘place’ (many different types of buildings = the Shed) which is used for many different activities is run by a volunteer group (Shed committee) for themselves and other men over the age of eighteen (usually) who have ‘time on their hands’, want to get out the house/flat to socialise (chat and put the world to rights, sometimes) and maybe also do something (build/repair,up-cycle/create/learn/mentor) in between the socialising in an alcohol free and welcoming environment.

The Scottish Men’s Shed is for all men who have ‘time on their hands’ who might want to lead active lives, make a difference and build their communities into something better. It has older men and younger men, unemployed and employed, skilled and unskilled. It has a value system of: ‘we value you for who you are, not what you do or have done’. If you have ‘skills’ that’s a bonus not a prerequisite to become a Shedder. Everyone by virtue of ‘experiencing life’ has value and something to share. Shedders go to a Men’s Shed for different reasons and over time those reasons can also change. We certainly hope they may as your life changes and therefore so do your needs and outlook on life.

Learn more here

Author: Robert Armour, TFN

Big Lottery Scotland has confirmed 22 posts have been shed as part of a major restructuring.

The funder, which has a budget of nearly £60 million in Scotland, offered all staff “voluntary exit” packages which were taken just before Christmas. It leaves the organisation with 79 staff across its Scottish operations.  Part of the ongoing restructure, which has not been made public, will see the funder shift priorities, building on a year-long pilot run across a number of local authorities.

It said it was now working to develop a “greater understanding of the local context” and how “our funded projects contribute across their wider community.” The restructure has raised fears that Scotland’s biggest independent source of cash to good causes could be struggling to maintain current levels of funding due to falling ticket sales.

However, a Big Lottery Fund spokeswoman said: “This restructure has been long planned and helps us to meet our vision to put people in the lead here in Scotland. It is not connected to levels of National Lottery Good cause revenue.” More posts will face redundancy, the funder said, although other posts will be created as part of the restructure.

The spokesperson added: “Over the last decade, we have focused on programmes and themes and we have structured ourselves internally as an organisation in the same way. We are restructuring the Scotland directorate to prioritise the importance of getting closer to communities and deliver our work differently to ensure those National Lottery funds we award are serving communities themselves. Before the restructure we had a staff compliment of 94 FTE posts and after the restructure is complete we will have a staff complement of 90.5 FTE posts.”

Last October Linwood Development Trust lost out on a £1,000,000 application of support from Big while autism charity the Tailor Ed Foundation said last week it will have to shut its doors as soon as March after a £405,000 funding bid was rejected by the Big Lottery.

However the funder said fluctuations in income did not necessarily signal immediate changes in the amount of money it awarded.

“We plan our cash flow over the longer term and awards made now are paid out over a number of years, so short-term changes in income can be managed,” said the spokesperson.

“The fund will continue to work flexibly to ensure that National Lottery funding continues to support charities and communities across the UK.”

Lottery operator Camelot’s half-year results, published last September, show that total returns to good causes in the six months to the end of September were £746.6m, a fall of £36.8m on the previous year.

Big says it has been working proactively with other distributors in response to the income drop.

It said it fully backed Camelot’s review which seeks to re-engage players and improve performance in the draw-based games.

So far the National Lottery has delivered more than £37 billion to good causes across the UK.