Question: how do you ensure that National Lottery money goes to deprived communities that really need the funds?

Richard Buxton: We've adopted a policy now of geographical targeting to ensure that the 100 most deprived local authorities in the country will be guaranteed a median level of funding over the course of the next few years. We are also going to be targeting certain groups in society such as the elderly, people who have been affected by social and economic change, and other disadvantaged groups. By geographical targeting and targeting particular sections of the community we are confident that our funds will be going to the most deprived people in society.

Question: Won't ring fenced funding for deprived areas always mean that some communities will complain that they are outside the ringed fence?

Richard Buxton: In guaranteeing a certain level of funding to the most deprived communities it does not mean others are going to lose out. Our normal grant giving will continue as before. We realise, for instance, that even within relatively affluent areas there can be pockets of deprivation and we will be tackling these too.

Rural deprivation is another issue that concerns us. The index of multiple deprivation which we use tends to pick up concentrated pockets of deprivation rather than more dispersed deprivation which is what you tend to find in rural areas. That is why in England we have recently announced an initiative with the countryside agency specifically to target rural deprivation because we know that it is not really reflected enough in our main geographic targeting.

What about areas of tourism affected by foot and mouth? Do they make it on to your list or possibly not because they are not from those deprived areas, but they are areas where there have been recent problems?

Richard Buxton: Targeting our resources and working with the countryside agency is going to mean that some of these areas will get help. We have been concerned about the impact foot and mouth and the decline in tourism has had on rural areas.

Blackpool and Great Yarmouth are both heavily dependent on tourism and both of these areas actually figure in our list of target areas for our fair share geographic targeting programme.

Question: Previously with the fair share scheme, one Labour MP said it was a socially engineered scheme designed by new Labour to reflect its own priorities. How would you respond to those kind of criticisms?

Richard Buxton: There was no external influence on us to come up with a methodology that was something that we didn't want. We have taken the most deprived areas in Britain and worked out how much money they have had from us in the past and how much they would need to bring them up to a median level of funding. By working out what they should have got, we can ensure that we give them the median amount in the future. I don't regard that as social engineering.

We want to move away from the situation that undoubtedly exists at the moment where he or she who is shouting loudest is getting most. This is a much more even handed way of ensuring that lottery money is getting to the deprived communities who need it most.

Question: Have you been talking to MPs about this, what other concerns do they have about the distribution of lottery money to charitable causes?

Richard Buxton: Some of the larger conurbation's such as Birmingham often have more than one MP and there is concern about which areas are getting Community Fund grants. It may be that one part of Birmingham, for instance, loses out compared to another part. We use local authorities as our baseline but we do need to look at where funding is going right down to ward level.

In Northern Ireland we are already doing this with a much more detailed modelling exercise at individual ward level. This will help us to track our funding to ensure we distribute funds fairly.

Question: Aren't you in a Catch 22 situation: It must be very difficult to ensure that you are not biased in your grant giving?

Richard Buxton: We have to look at it on a pragmatic basis which is that our job is to recognise the needs of communities. We are not doing this on the basis of recognising the needs of politicians but we do want to involve them in a dialogue to ensure they know about our work, what we are doing, and how we award grants.

We know that in some communities travelling 10 miles is a long way to go if you want to access a service. Therefore there are going to be some parts of the country where we do want to do some quite focused geographic targeting down to individual ward levels and communities. This is very much the thinking behind the government's neighbourhood renewal strategy and we support that. It is not about bias but fairness.

Question: Which regions do you believe have missed out recently and need more attention from you?

Richard Buxton: Our number one regional focus is going to be Yorkshire and Humberside. I think there are a number of significant areas in Yorkshire and Humberside where we are going to be putting a lot of effort because they have not done well in the past. There is a similar problem in the North West too, so we will be focusing on these two regions which are part of our fair share scheme and they will also gain through our geographic targeting of funds.

Question: What flexibility do you have to respond quickly to events that may affect a region or a town or a city, such as flooding for instance, the help that communities might need there. Can you allocate funds quickly?

Richard Buxton: Local authorities have always been responsible for disaster relief and the Government has always said that it is not appropriate to use lottery funds for emergencies.

Traditionally we haven't been involved in short term intervention disaster relief projects either at home or with our international funding programme overseas. What we have been told is that organisations and communities need funding for the longer term so that is where we have been putting our resources.

Question: Your fair share scheme involves a partnership between yourselves and the New Opportunities Fund, which helps to improve public services in key areas. Is this the job of the lottery do you think?

Richard Buxton: The Community Fund is in the business of funding services which are going to assist people in deprived communities, suffering social disadvantage. This is at the heart of our work and the work that the New Opportunities fund does. So long as we are doing this, and responding to the real needs of communities then I think we can say we are doing a good job.

I am particularly interested in the concept of community services, and there are a whole series of ways in which services can be delivered to the community, funded from a whole series of sources. We are working with these other funders, as well as NOF, to ensure communities benefit from our work.

Question: Less than five pence in the pound spent on a lottery ticket goes to charity. Do you think that is enough?

Richard Buxton: Of the total income from the lottery, half the money goes out in prizes. Of the money that doesn't go out in prizes, a very sizeable proportion goes to a range of good causes including sports and arts projects which often benefit local communities. The Community Fund has given £2.2 billion to 47,000 groups over the past six years and we will be giving more. If the Government wanted to give us more we have always said we could spend it.