Enterprise and Culture Committee, 01 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Official Report 171KB pdf

---

Scottish Rugby Union

Item 4 is consideration of issues arising from the discussions at our last meeting with a range of representatives from the Scottish Rugby Union. I remind members that we are in public session—we do not move into private session until item 5.

The purpose of this session is threefold: first, to decide whether to invite other appropriate people to give evidence on the subject and, if so, whom; secondly, to decide whether to prepare some kind of commentary or report; and thirdly, if so, to give the clerks a steer as to the first draft.

What we heard last week centred on an event that is still to happen, which will determine the future governance structure of Scottish rugby. A committee report would be premature at this point. What could we say other than that we await with great interest the outcome of the meeting? We know that governance is a key issue, but I am not sure that if we were to say so, it would add a huge amount to the debate on the future of Scottish rugby.

Are you suggesting that we carry over the item until there are further developments? Are you suggesting that we do not make formal comment until after that meeting happens?

I am curious to hear what other members think of my comment. I am an observer in all of this. Unlike Susan Deacon, I know very little about the internal workings of the SRU. I will be guided by other members on the subject.

I do not profess to be an expert on the internal workings of the SRU. The important decision that the committee has to take is whether—consciously and deliberately—to express an opinion that would predate the key decision point in April. We should say something in advance of the meeting, but if we do, we should tread carefully. It would be wrong of us to be prescriptive in any sense about the detailed structure of governance in the governing body of any sport.

That said, we should be prepared to say something along the lines of, "We state our desire that whatever arrangements are put in place comply with the requirements of UK Sport"—that is the correct terminology. Colleagues will recall the range of the discussion that took place last week. On the face of it, all the witnesses seemed to indicate that the arrangements should be compliant in that way. Although all the witnesses seemed to indicate that there is a need for one body to oversee the sport, it is clear that there are different views about how to get there and what the body might look like.

As I said, it is absolutely up to those who will be at the meeting in April to decide on the detail and to put flesh on the bones. That said, it would be proper for us to note our concerns and say that we expect that the requirements that UK Sport has set down should be met.

Much of the discussion hinged on the working party report, which I think is due to be published this week. I got the feeling from the first panel of witnesses—Fred McLeod, Gordon Dixon and Ian McGeechan—that they were of the view that there should be one governing body. Phil Anderton underlined that and stressed that much of the problem, if not the whole problem, was caused by there being two bodies governing the sport. I was not totally convinced when I heard the two members of the SRU general committee, particularly the one who is a member of the working party, say that that will happen in the short term.

There are two issues. First, we are involved because of the importance of rugby and because the Scottish public sector, through sportscotland, supports the Scottish Rugby Union to the tune of approximately £0.5 million every year. We are responsible for ensuring that a not insubstantial amount of public money is wisely invested.

The second point is about meeting UK Sport's guidelines on governance. It would be reasonable for the committee to say at this stage that, in return for continuing public sector support through sportscotland, we expect the SRU to implement those guidelines sooner rather than later, and that we reserve the right to revisit the situation. We do not need a detailed report or any further evidence at this stage; I think that we have probably heard enough to be able to say that.

Our job is to make sure that public money is being invested wisely. If there is more than one governing body, it is quite clear that there will be a repeat of past problems. It is reasonable for the committee to say that.

I will take another bite at the cherry. I think that you are right. The committee discussed this matter and heard from the witnesses because there was concern over the future of Scottish rugby. Whatever we say about governance, we should be clear that there is a need to sustain the professional sport, and to grow players through schools and the amateur clubs for the future of rugby. If the governance arrangements do not allow both those strands of the game to operate effectively, the future is still in doubt. If it is appropriate for the committee to say that—and I think that it probably is—we should say it, assuming that the other members agree with me.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that we write a formal letter to the SRU along those lines? There has to be some kind of response from last week's meeting and, given the level of co-operation that we received from all who participated, it should be a formal one. If the committee is quite happy to delegate it to Mike Watson and me to approve a letter reflecting the view of the committee, we will do that. Is everyone happy to agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will copy the letter to the minister and to sportscotland. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That probably covers that item so if everyone is happy, we will continue in private for items 5 and 6.

Meeting suspended until 15:15 and thereafter continued in private until 15:46.