Enterprise and Culture Committee, 12 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Football

Item 3 is the most important item. The committee will consider an interim report and discussion paper on how to go about our consultation. The discussion paper, which is based on the earlier draft report that was prepared by Richard Baker, has been circulated. It is obviously very much oriented towards being a discussion paper that asks questions rather than one that reaches conclusions. Are there any comments on the paper? Richard, would you like to say anything by way of introduction?

The clerks have crystallised the initial report very well. I was surprised to see how much text we had lost while still keeping the sense of it. I know that there are some recommendations that could be seen as being controversial in the report that I brought to the committee. The clerks brought up those issues—I think that they have done so very well. I certainly think that the sort of questions that have been posed will lead to an interesting set of evidence, which I hope the committee will be able to consider. I hope that the committee will also consider the evidence that I have already collected and circulated to the clerks, and that the questions will stimulate debate.

If we are sending the paper out, we should make it clear that not every organisation will want to answer every one of the 25 questions and that they may answer only some of them; some organisations might feel that their expertise lies in certain areas. It would also be great to get thousands of fans writing in. We should try to maximise that, but it might simply be in the nature of the process that we will not get thousands of responses, as we have seen with other consultations in the past year. However, many people will want to respond to the consultation. It is particularly important that we get the key stakeholders to respond. Having read the paper myself, I think that it has crystallised the issues well, and the questions are extremely well put.

The paper is very good; it is exactly the right way to approach the subject. Like Richard Baker, I hope that we get lots of feedback from people. My only slight quibble is with paragraph 3 of the introductory page, which states:

"The rest of the Committee endorsed the general principles in his report".

I am not convinced that we can say that without having a discussion about it and looking at all the evidence. I would be happy if we could take out the words

"endorsed the general principles in his report",

and wait to see what we get back, rather than our saying that we are simply presenting the paper for discussion.

That is reasonable. Is everybody happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I wanted to mention the idea of having a glossy version of the discussion paper.

That is the next decision that we have to make, but at the moment we are discussing the draft itself.

Okay.

I have two points. First, I join other members in expressing appreciation to Richard Baker for all the work that he has done. This is the first time I can recall seeing a list of people who have already contributed; it is an enormous job for a committee reporter to do.

I have a second point on the discussion paper, although my substantive concerns can be fully explored later. The point relates to the fact that, although our approach takes a football-only perspective, the word "football" could be deleted and the word "sport" inserted. Clearly, we get answers to the questions that we ask and, as a committee, we asked for a report on football. Let us take page 18, for example. In just about every question on that page, the word "football" could be substituted by the word "sport". We could call for a stakeholder forum on sport and for community planning partnerships to liaise with sports organisations rather than just football organisations.

We asked Richard Baker to do a report on football, but I raise my point now because it is appropriate for the committee to acknowledge that some of the views that are expressed and the questions that are raised in the report may well be equally applicable to other sports. We could also acknowledge that the needs of football could be more appropriately addressed in a wider context. It would be helpful to acknowledge that point up front in the report. If we do so at the outset, we will head off people who may want to express that concern.

I am quite happy to do that. We will build in that suggestion.

If we were to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for example, we could say that our recommendations could be applied to other sporting facilities.

With those comments, are members happy with the paper or does any member have another point to raise?

I have one point to make. The paper says that

"it is proposed to run the consultation process for about 5 weeks (until Friday 13 May)."

Given that 13 May is only four weeks away, I am concerned that we may not be giving people adequate time to respond.

We could give them until the end of May.

Some organisations meet only once a month.

My concern is that we should have something out before the summer.

The closing date for the consultation should be pushed back by at least a week and by two weeks, if possible. I make that request with the proviso that we should aim to publish by the time Parliament breaks up for the summer recess at the end of June.

So, should we set the date at around 23 May? Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Richard Baker; a lot of work went into the paper. Michael Matheson has a point on the consultation options paper.

My point concerns the idea of producing a glossy version of the discussion paper. I am not sure what purpose that would serve other than to have a glossy version of the document, which would cost quite a bit of money. I have complained often to councils about the big glossy documents that they produce, so I would hate for us to go down that route.

Particularly given the timescale.

Also, in terms of publicising the consultation, I am not convinced that we will hit the targets we have to hit. Using the Parliament's website is fine, but it would be worth our while to try and get something into club programmes. We could advertise the fact that evidence is being taken and we could direct people to the website. We could also ask fans to consider contacting us to give their views. We need to get to the critical masses and that might be one way of doing so.

That is a good idea.

We could contact supporters trusts, too.

An organisation called Supporters Direct is the overarching body for supporters trusts in Scotland—it is an Executive-funded body. I see that James Proctor, who is one of the Supporters Direct directors, has contributed to the paper. I am sure that he could disseminate the information to trusts or ensure that all trusts get a copy of the paper.

A number of clubs have their own fanzines, some of which come out weekly and are very professionally produced; indeed, some fanzines attract higher sales than do club programmes. We should include them, possibly by taking advertising slots.

That is a helpful suggestion. I will quickly run through the recommendations. The committee is invited to discuss and agree the process of consultation, with the changes that we have made. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to make the written evidence that we receive publicly available at the end of the consultation?

Does that include the written evidence that we have at the moment and anything we receive as part of the consultation?

Yes. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to publish the finalised discussion document online?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that we will not produce a glossy version of the document?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to authorise the convener, the deputy convener and Richard Baker to publicise the consultation in the print and broadcast media as outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to invite the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and representatives of the national football organisations to give evidence to the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, do members agree that once the report is agreed by the committee, it should be given full publicity via press briefings?

Members indicated agreement.

Try and stop us.

I thank members very much for that excellent session. Our next meeting will be held on 26 April, when we will hear evidence from the BBC as well as from the unions. That will be an important meeting. I look forward to seeing members on the day.

Meeting closed at 15:35.