Thanks heavens for campaigners such as Denis Vaughan. The Aussie hatched the idea for a British national lottery in the first place. In the 13 years since it was inaugurated he’s been one of the few with the patience to keep tabs on its Byzantine finances. And it’s the opaque nature of the allocations that is the real issue here.

The Arts Council may be exercising common sense in retaining so much “allocated” lottery money. After all, if it released large sums to organisations before their projects were complete it would be accused of negligence. But we don’t know that this is the case. The Arts Council releases minimum information, citing confidentiality. And both the Arts Council and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are evasive about the ever-changing criteria for lottery awards.

When the Lottery was set up, the rules were clear. The money would be used for “additional” spending on the arts, but not to cover general running costs. It was not to be a device for letting the Government gradually reduce arts subsidies.

But that firm rule seems to have become as soft as melting butter. So would it be possible for the Arts Council to divert some of that stashed £152 million to rescue the 200 companies whose grants were cut this year? Nobody at the council will give a straight answer.

This secrecy is damaging the arts at the worst possible time. The arts world has argued noisily that Britain’s cultural life shouldn’t be jeopardised to pay for the 2012 Olympics. But if it turns out that the Arts Council isn’t even spending the money it does have, that argument is hugely undermined.

Explore Music

• CD Reviews

• Live Reviews

• Classical

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of 2009
• The 100 Worst Movies of 2009
• The 100 Best Films of the Decade