Local Government and Communities Committee, 16 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Official Report 513KB pdf

---

Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill: Stage 1

Item 2 on our agenda is stage 1 evidence on the general principles of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. I welcome Stewart Maxwell, the Minister for Communities and Sport, who is supported by his officials Ian Campbell, David Thompson and Beth Elliot.

Minister, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Yes, if I may, convener. However, before I do that, I pay tribute to the Scottish cycling champion Jason MacIntyre, who died tragically yesterday. Jason was one of our finest athletes, and represented Scotland at the highest level on the international sporting stage, including at the 2002 Commonwealth games in Manchester, and his death unfortunately robs Scottish sport of an incredible talent. I pass on the Scottish Government's condolences to his wife and twin daughters.

I am sure that the committee concurs with those remarks and sentiments.

Thank you, convener.

I know that the committee has a busy morning, so I will try to keep my opening statement brief.

There are one or two items ahead.

I believe so.

I welcome the opportunity to come before the committee to discuss the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. I am grateful for the work that the committee, the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee have undertaken so far. As the committee is aware, the bill meets the bid partners' commitments to the Commonwealth Games Federation and is one of our first steps in delivering a Glasgow Commonwealth games of which the whole country can be proud.

The federation places a number of requirements on host cities, including the requirement to ensure that legislation is in place to prohibit ambush marketing, eliminate street vending and control advertising space around games venues. It also requires that measures be put in place to prohibit ticket touting. The bill fulfils those obligations and other commitments that were given in the candidate city file. It creates new powers to secure ownership of land that is needed for the games and ensures that the games transport plan is developed and implemented. It also gives the Scottish ministers the power to provide support to the organising committee, including the Government's share of financing for the games.

We consulted widely on the draft bill over the summer of 2007. The bill that has been introduced to Parliament reflects that process and has been improved by responses that were received during it. My officials are also considering the responses that the committee has received to its consultation.

The political consensus behind Scotland's bid played a large part in securing the games for Scotland. I am here not only to answer any questions but to hear how we can work towards achieving a similar consensus on the bill. I am grateful to the committee for agreeing to take this evidence on such a busy morning and I am happy to take any questions.

A general question has arisen to do with the composition of Glasgow 2014 Ltd. How will the organising committee be made up, and how will it be held accountable to local government, given the amount of public money that will be going into it?

The organising committee will be made up from the Government, Glasgow City Council, the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland and the Commonwealth Games Federation. It will be important for all those partners to ensure that our interests are best served during the development of the games.

Concern has been expressed—real or imagined—about projects, schemes and plans that could go awry and be affected by cost overruns. This committee is interested in knowing how we can scrutinise the organisers and hold them to account. A lot of public money will be invested.

The Glasgow 2014 strategic group will oversee the organising committee, and Parliament and its committees will also have a clear role in scrutinising development work over the next six years or so. I am happy to reaffirm our commitment to provide an annual progress report to Parliament. I will be happy to update committees and the spokespeople of other parties if situations arise between the annual reports.

The annual reports will be useful to the committee and to Parliament, as will any in-between reports.

It will be important to have a fixed annual report, to ensure that we address the issues and do not allow them to drift. However, we will also carry on briefing Opposition party spokespeople and we will ensure that Parliament and its committees are fully informed of progress between the reports. If issues arise that have to be addressed, I will be happy to discuss them with the committee and with parliamentary spokespeople.

I welcome that assurance.

The Commonwealth Games Federation places certain requirements on host cities, as is reflected in the bill. However, I am surprised that, even at this stage, local authorities such as North Lanarkshire Council have expressed concerns. For example, businesses that currently trade at Strathclyde country park may not have the opportunity to so do during the games, and there will be limitations on advertising by the council and by the organisations that rent space from it. Have you discussed such issues with the council? Have you been able to allay its fears?

I certainly hope so. As regulations develop, we will continue to discuss them with the parties involved, including North Lanarkshire Council. I am aware of the council's submission to the consultation and of its concerns about the triathlon in Strathclyde country park. However, the triathlon is a single event on a single day, so the impact should be minimal.

Clearly, we have to protect the games and their good name, but we will be happy to discuss with North Lanarkshire Council and other relevant parties any concerns that they have during the development of the regulations.

North Lanarkshire Council has viewed the staging of the triathlon at Strathclyde country park as an opportunity, but it might now view the bill as taking away that opportunity because of the restrictions that will be placed on venues. Others may have similar concerns, so how will you address them?

It is clear that there have to be some restrictions in terms of protecting the games. You should be well aware of that stream of work given your previous role as Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. At the same time, there are massive opportunities for councils throughout the country, particularly those around Glasgow, such as North Lanarkshire Council—which covers Ravenscraig, where new sports facilities will be developed—South Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council. Councils can make high-profile bids for training camps and can ensure that they maximise the benefits of people coming to live in their areas during the games and of tourists using their areas as local bases for visiting the games. Businesses are also in a good position to maximise their opportunities. We are more than happy to engage with various commercial interests to ensure that we create the maximum possible benefit for them, their employees and the areas surrounding Glasgow.

Obviously, there is a potential for such benefits, but I am concerned about the fact that, currently, North Lanarkshire Council does not seem to be aware of either the restrictions or the opportunities.

As you know, I am interested in the legacy of the games. Would you like to comment on yesterday's announcement about the future of the chairs of the Scottish Institute of Sport and sportscotland? Do you believe that it will have any impact on the legacy of the games? The situation in relation to Julia Bracewell, for instance, could have an impact on the legacy not only of the Commonwealth games but of the 2012 Olympic games.

I do not believe that the announcement will have any negative impact on the opportunities that we are faced with as a result of the 2014 Commonwealth games and the 2012 Olympic games.

Last week, I announced that a new organisation will result from the merger of the Scottish Institute of Sport and sportscotland, and that it will have a single board. Yesterday, I discussed with both chairs the process by which that will be taken forward. Clearly, we want to ensure that the chair of the new organisation is able to drive forward the necessary improvements and changes, particularly in terms of decentralisation. As you are aware, both chairs will be standing down on 15 February and we will immediately start the process of recruiting a new chair. That new chair could be a new person or one of the current chairs, if they wish to apply for the post—the public appointments process is completely open and they are absolutely entitled to apply.

The situation will have no impact on the games. The elite end of the institute's programme will remain in Stirling and will have the flexibility to operate as it has done in the past. The institute has been guaranteed that. During the consultation process, I spoke with the chief executive officer and the chair of the institute, which was why I made it clear in my announcement that that operational flexibility will be retained in relation to the elite end of the programme.

In relation to the Olympic games, the Scottish Government will have representation on the nations and regions group and on the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. A person will be appointed to those posts in due course.

Although I have not discussed this matter with the chairs, I suspect—based on what the minister has said—that he does not think that either of them could take forward his vision for sportscotland.

I did not say that.

The implication of your comments, minister, is that it is unlikely that either of them would wish to apply for a post from which they have already been sacked. It is concerning to all of us that the person who has represented us on the nations and regions group for a considerable amount of time—Julia Bracewell—will no longer be able to do so.

You mentioned that you discussed matters with the chair and the chief executive of the SIS prior to your announcement last week. Can you clarify that, as it seems to fly in the face of public statements that the chair has made? Also, do you think that it might have been more appropriate to make the announcement that you made yesterday during the course of your statement to Parliament last week?

The facts are that there was communication between the SIS and the Government in a variety of ways: written correspondence, e-mails, telephone calls and face-to-face meetings at a high level between the institute and the Government—

Why did you not say that during your statement last week?

I am just coming to that point. That communication involved senior officials in the institute, the chief executive officer and the chair. I met the chair and chief executive officer in December to discuss their view of the future of the institute and its role in the future of sportscotland. There was correspondence and a number of contacts between the Government and the SIS. There is no reason to suspect that the institute's views were not widely known by both the Government and officials—its views were taken on board.

In my statement to Parliament last week, I made clear that the institute must have the flexibility to operate in the way in which it has operated for a number of years. I did not think that it was appropriate to discuss the future of individuals in the statement before I had a chance to speak to them face to face. I asked both the individuals concerned to meet me yesterday. Julia Bracewell was available and Dougie Donnelly was not, but he said that he would be happy to discuss matters over the phone. That discussion took place yesterday.

Patricia Ferguson asked you about the implications of yesterday's decision for our long-term aspirations following the games. It is vital that you, the committee, people working on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill and organisations outwith the Parliament, including the Scottish Institute of Sport and sportscotland, work together to give us the best chance of success at the Commonwealth games. What chance is there of such success, given that you have pulled the carpet from underneath the institute and sportscotland by sacking their heads?

I do not accept your interpretation of the events that have taken place. Last week, we announced that a new organisation would be established, merging the Scottish Institute of Sport and sportscotland under a single board. A chair of that organisation must be appointed. The clear result of the decision that has been made is that both chairs will stand down. There is an open, transparent public appointments process that we must follow when appointing the new chair. It is open to any individual with suitable qualifications and experience to apply for the position.

I do not accept that the rug was pulled from under any organisation. The new organisation will have a joined-up approach, from grass roots right through to the elite athlete programme. The institute will remain in Stirling and will have the same staff and the same ability to operate flexibly. However, it will not have an extra board through which it must report—it will now report directly to the board of sportscotland, through the organisation's chief executive officer, rather than through a board and a chief executive officer to another board. We have removed a layer of bureaucracy from the process. Many organisations and individuals from a number of sporting bodies, including swimming and golf bodies and the Scottish Institute of Sport Foundation, welcomed last week's announcement. I do not accept the member's interpretation of what the announcement means for sport in Scotland.

I will not labour the point—the minister and I will have to agree to disagree on a number of issues, including on whether sportscotland is a new body or an existing body with the same name and responsibilities.

My substantive question relates to the enforcement provisions in the bill. Are you aware of the concerns of a range of police organisations regarding the extensive powers of enforcement officers for which the bill provides, which are said to be greater than the powers of police officers? If so, how do you respond to those concerns?

We have responded to the concerns that the police expressed in the consultation and have tightened up considerably the definition of who can be an enforcement officer. Originally, the police expressed a number of concerns about the definition, but now only persons such as trading standards officers can be enforcement officers. Such individuals have the necessary qualifications and professionalism, because their day-to-day work is to enter commercial and other premises to seek problems of the sort to which the bill refers. Their work for the games will just be an extension of that. We have also ensured that police officers will have the final say in the case of a forced entry: a constable will have to accompany a trading standards officer in that eventuality. I hope that our changes to the bill will allay the fears that the police expressed in their consultation submission.

Good morning, minister. At 8.30 this morning, we received the Finance Committee's report on the financial memorandum for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, paragraphs 17 to 22 of which are dedicated to the lottery. Paragraph 22 states:

"the Scottish Government is not now precluded from making a policy decision to try to offset some of that public commitment by seeking lottery funding, allowing more money to be invested in grass-roots sport development in Scottish communities."

Will the Government pursue lottery funding?

There are two points. First, we will not pursue lottery funding to pay for the physical infrastructure and facilities for the games. However, there is a view in the Government, which I think is shared by a number of people, that we should pursue lottery funding to try to retain the money that the Westminster Government unfortunately intends to remove from good causes and sport over the next few years. The figures have been widely discussed in the press following the debate in the House of Commons last night.

We will pursue the United Kingdom Government on the basis of our view that the £150-plus million should be retained in Scotland for good causes and the £13.1 million should be retained for sport. Over and above that, and in light of the Finance Committee's contribution this morning, I am happy to confirm that we will engage with the lottery distributors in the hope of getting them to contribute to grass-roots sport over the next few years. There are therefore two separate issues: the retention of the money that is going to be taken away, and our intention to pursue the lottery for funding for grass-roots sport over the next few years. However, that funding would not directly contribute to the games infrastructure; it would be for building up grass-roots sport and the legacy.

Just to clarify—although I am pretty sure that I know what you are saying—you will not seek UK lottery funding moneys from the UK pot that might currently go to, for example, Devon, Yorkshire, Northern Ireland or Wales; you will simply seek to retain moneys that are currently allocated to Scotland but which are likely to head south to help fund the 2012 Olympics. Is that right?

No. There are two things. One is that we intend to continue to pursue the retention of the money that will be lost over the next few years, which is the £13.1 million for sport and the £150-plus million for good causes. In addition, we will engage with lottery distributors to ascertain whether they are willing to contribute money for the development of grass-roots sport in Scotland over the next few years, in order to build a legacy from the games. We will not pursue money for the construction of games facilities.

I think that that point is clear. However, if your Government is arguing that money should not come from other parts of the UK to help fund the London Olympics, surely we should make it clear that we would not seek resources from other parts of the UK to help fund the Glasgow Commonwealth games.

Absolutely. It is right and proper that we discuss with the lottery distributors whether they are willing to contribute over the next few years. Their money is allocated up to 2009 at the moment. Beyond that, the issue is what post-2009 money they would be willing to contribute to sport over the next few years. That is about the pot of money that they will have to spend and how they will distribute it; it is not about persuading other parts of the UK that money should come from there to Scotland.

If money does come to the Commonwealth games, can you confirm that it will be additional to money that has been allocated by the Scottish Government to the Glasgow games and that it will not displace investment that will be made regardless of whether lottery funding is provided?

Clearly, we do not know yet whether they are willing to contribute additional money or whether we can retain the money that is about to be lost. However, the budget is in place for the games and any other money would be about investing in building the legacy.

Indeed.

My questions are on a similar point, so I will be brief. To what extent have you planned for contingencies for the legacy of the games—for the different possibilities that relate to lottery money being forthcoming? How does lottery funding affect the legacy?

As we promised, we will publish a legacy consultation document within the first 100 days—the intention is to do so in about mid-February—and we will reply to the consultation in the summer of 2009. There are several opportunities. Up to 1,200 net jobs might be created—more than 1,000 could be in Glasgow—and the net economic benefit might be about £81 million. We can build up several legacy benefits by ensuring that we achieve the target of 15,000 volunteers working for the games. We can also leave a legacy for the greener agenda—the games can produce an environmental exemplar. The regeneration of the east end of Glasgow and of the wider Lanarkshire area, which is part of the Clyde gateway work, is another benefit. Much work that is going on does not rely absolutely on the games.

If we succeed in retaining lottery funding and achieving additional investment in sport from the lottery in the run-up to 2014, that money will be invested in building the grass roots of sport. That is the intended legacy. One element is widening participation and another is increasing the standard of athletes in our country. Money for sport should be spent on that, which I believe would have the knock-on benefit of creating role models for young people and improving health and physical activity rates in the next few years.

Minister, I am sure that you agree that last week was not the finest for your area of responsibility. Your Executive had to make a U-turn on its position on sportscotland, you had to apologise to Parliament and, in at least one other case, one might argue that your officials briefed the press on questions that you did not answer in the chamber. However, it was agreed that the right decision was made. People in the sporting field felt that retaining sportscotland was a significant gain from that difficulty, yet it now seems that sportscotland will not be retained and that, instead, a new organisation with the same name will be created. You have made that distinction clear.

I made that clear last week.

Well—

I did—if you check my statement, you will find that that is exactly what was said. The new organisation will be formed from the merger of the Scottish Institute of Sport and sportscotland. It will have a single board and a new, decentralised structure and the headquarters will relocate to Glasgow. That was announced in the statement last week.

The accusation seems to be that we undertook a consultation, listened to sporting bodies throughout Scotland, listened to expert opinion and based a decision on the evidence and the consultation responses that we received. I am happy to plead guilty to listening to expert opinion and ensuring that we get the structure right for sport. That was the intention and that is what we did.

The difficulty is that you have muddied the waters again. You said last week that you listened and that sportscotland would be retained, but we are now being told that only the name will be retained. After the announcement, you sacked the chairs of the boards of sportscotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport. One chair has said that you sacked him, but you did not say that you were planning to do that. That is different from having a transition process.

How do we ensure certainty in change when we lack clarity about sportscotland? Instead of dealing with the matter last week, which would have allowed people to concentrate now on the Commonwealth games, we have had a further week of damaging headlines and comment, which is not helped by the minister's explanation. You are trying to do two things at once. You are trying to say, "Don't worry—the organisation's being retained and I have listened to you," and that a new organisation is being created. Surely that dual line is unsustainable.

I am happy to answer the question, but I am not sure how it fits in with the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill.

The question is about confidence and certainty in change.

As I said last week, we will have a new organisation. Clearly, there will be a single board. At the moment, we have two boards. Having a single board will have a knock-on effect on the appointment of a chair to take matters forward. The discussion took place yesterday with both chairs. Frankly, attempts to distort the events of the past few days are an irrelevance.

So you did not sack them.

Order.

Last week, I announced the new organisation. As it is right and proper for me to do, this week I spoke to both chairs on how we are taking forward the single board. The process will be open and transparent. It comes under the guidelines that are laid down in the public appointments process for the appointment of a chair, which is perfectly proper and reasonable. That is what happened. I make no comment on what individuals have said in the press. They have expressed their views. I disagree with those views, but I will not comment further on them.

I disagree with you on the relevance of the question. That said, members have had an opportunity to question the minister on current affairs and so forth. I sympathise with the minister on the point that, if we continue to take evidence on the matter, it will dominate this session, which is primarily on the bill. We should move on. Members have been given an opportunity to ask questions, and I am sure that they will raise further questions.

On a point of information, convener, the committee may be unaware that I am to appear before the Health and Sport Committee next week to discuss the issue. That is the relevant committee and it is the time to have a full and frank discussion on the issue.

That, of course, is your opinion, minister. My opinion is that the questions were relevant and that there was an opportunity this morning to discuss the issue. That said, I believe that enough has been said on the matter. I seek the committee's approval to move on. We should focus on the bill. I have no further bids for questions from committee members. I call Robert Brown MSP, who is at committee today. You have the last question, Robert.

I seek clarification on the timescale. I think that everyone agrees that the disruption of the process is an important issue. When will the new chair be in place? Have you any comment on the observations that Dougie Donnelly made last night? In effect, he said that the disruption over the whole period is an issue. I appreciate that my questions are on the same matter, but it is important that we know the answers.

If you want to answer the questions, minister, you can do so, although I expected a question on the bill. If you object to answering the questions, that is fine.

I said that I was happy to answer the last question. That said, I doubt the relevance of the questions to the bill that is the subject of the evidence-taking session.

I have nothing to add to my previous comments. I have made it clear that I do not intend to comment on the comments that Mr Donnelly and Ms Bracewell have made on the process. They have their opinion. I disagree with it. We are moving forward. The position is clear. The public appointments process is laid down in guidelines. That will now kick in. It will take its normal course.

There are no further questions for the minister. Thank you for your attendance and co-operation this morning, minister.