Official Report 292KB pdf
Agenda item 1 is our inquiry into Scottish football. I welcome the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Patricia Ferguson MSP, and John Gilmour, who is head of the relevant unit—I will not bother to read out its full name—in the Scottish Executive Education Department. I invite Patricia Ferguson to say something first.
I welcome the committee's decision to undertake an inquiry into Scottish football, and I congratulate Richard Baker and Brian Adam on the thorough investigation that they have undertaken. I look forward to considering and responding to the committee's full report in due course. Meanwhile, if I may, I will make some general remarks to set in a wider context the written response that I submitted to the committee last week.
Thank you, that was very helpful. We have circulated the previous paper from the minister.
I want to concentrate on public sector engagement with football, which is the area over which the Executive can exert most direct influence. At the previous evidence session, David Taylor said that the SFA feels that because money is channelled through sportscotland, the SFA is not trusted with public money. That is a controversial point of view, but if it were true, this question would follow: how is that trust to be gained?
At the end of the day, the structure that the SFA puts in place is for the SFA and—if I can call them this—its affiliates to decide. However, they have recognised that that is an area that needs to change. One of the things that we are keen to see is recreational football having more of a say in the operation of the SFA. As I understand it, the junior league, youth football and women's football for that matter, currently each have one vote on the SFA, as does each individual large club, so something like 77 clubs and the affiliates have one vote each. It is important to change that structure; it could be done by adopting a regional model that allows the regions to have their say and to come up to the top of the SFA through an appropriate structure.
As regards strengthening the regional model, it has been interesting during compilation of the interim report to hear that many people do not feel that they are listened to or heard despite their doing a lot of work and having important roles in football. I know that proposed new organisations such as the independent commission and a new forum to discuss the football strategy in Scotland have not met with approval from other organisations; nor, indeed, were they approved in your submission. I am interested to hear that you think the regional organisations could go beyond youth football and that they should examine development of all aspects of the game. How would the Executive encourage the SFA to build more on such forums so that they are not just about youth football?
I hope that such forums would not be just about youth football, but would also be about junior football, women's football and recreational football in the widest possible sense. By encouraging that kind of attitude, we might achieve the end that Richard Baker describes. The SFA is more inclined towards that approach than was previously the case and it should be congratulated on that and encouraged to see it through. I do not underestimate the time that that will take to put into place, but we will give the SFA any encouragement that we can.
On the encouragement of more public sector engagement with clubs at that level, and development of the game to achieve the cross-cutting benefits that we all want to see, if the partnerships prove effective—they are still at an early stage—do you hope that a wider range of local agencies can become involved in them and support community football? For example, in my area—Aberdeen—a very successful scheme also addresses health and antisocial behaviour. Would the partnerships be a forum in which health boards and police boards could engage to support local football activity and other sports activity that also helps to endorse some of their goals?
I think that local authorities would have a key role to play, given that they have part of the responsibility for delivering facilities and other programmes. Local authorities would be key partners in such work. The mechanism would ultimately mean that football is more part of the community that it sprang from and that it would reach out in whatever ways were appropriate to that community and have dialogue with it about what is required and what would work. The models that Richard Baker outlined are the kind of things that I hope local authorities would ultimately see their way toward doing.
We heard again and again throughout the inquiry and from the organisations who last gave evidence that improved facilities are necessary, which is why it is important that the local partnerships take effect quickly, that they have bite and that they are effective. There is a national plan for regional facilities that has £50 million of funding, and there is the impending publication by sportscotland of the audit of local facilities, which are both welcome. Will you encourage and support development of local action plans for improved facilities? Resources are obviously an issue, but better use of existing facilities and resources is also essential. Will there be a national response to that audit or should the matter be progressed by local partnerships?
We must wait and see what the audit says before we react to it. We have already recognised that there is a need for more facilities and for facilities in more areas of the country so that there are more local facilities. The new opportunities for physical education and sport fund has already put in place the opportunity for 28 synthetic turf pitches and 58 multigames areas to be built. Such developments are already happening. Much of what will happen through the plan for regional sports facilities will have a big impact on football. We are moving in that direction. We can always do more, but I await with great interest the sportscotland audit, which will give the Scottish Executive and local government food for thought in respect of how we plan to take the matter forward in the future.
I know that you are monitoring implementation of the youth action plan. Are you ensuring that the partnerships are being built up and are becoming effective organisations so that local decisions are being made and the right kind of progress is being made?
That is certainly the aim and the intention.
Every member wants to ask questions, so I will go round the table, which means that I get to ask the next question.
That is not the case. Before devolution, in the late 1980s and 1990s, as of necessity because of what happened at Hillsborough and in other such incidents, a great deal of funding was put into the capital side of football, but not into development of football. The money was put into infrastructure so that football clubs could provide their supporters with safe environments in which to watch football. A great deal of money was spent on that.
Would you say that, proportionately, as much money is probably going into football in Scotland through those various sources as is going into football south of the border?
The situation south of the border is a bit different because some of the money from the Government for football in England is funding that is matched to what the Football Association puts in, which comes from revenues from television coverage. That does not happen here because, to be frank, the clubs cannot afford to put aside such a large amount of money from football coverage. If one were to leave aside the fact that the mechanism is not similar, what is happening in England would probably be more comparable. There is an issue about the element of revenue that comes from television coverage.
Would you be able to provide us with comparable figures? Do you have that facility?
I can certainly give you information about what matched funding goes into the Football Foundation.
That would be helpful.
I am not trying to be difficult, but I understand that the audit has been undertaken and is being written up. I do not expect that we will have to wait until the end of the year for the audit to be completed, but I am not sure when it will arrive on my desk.
Perhaps sportscotland could give us an indication of when it expects to publish the audit.
I am not sure that it has a definite publication date yet; if it had, I think that it would have given it to us. As soon as we know, I will inform the committee.
It would be helpful if we could get the audit before we complete our inquiry.
I had not intended to mention the audit, but I know that sportscotland is in the throes of appointing a new chair and a new chief executive officer—I am not sure what the proper title is. Has that delayed production of the report to which the convener referred?
I do not think that that has been a factor at all.
I want to raise two specific points about the Executive's submission. It is surprising that it does not mention an organisation called the Scottish Football Partnership. When the Scottish Football Association appeared before the committee a few weeks ago, it highlighted the difference between the resources that are being spent on facilities—especially indoor and artificial turf facilities—in England and what is being spent in Scotland. You have made the point that, to some extent and leaving aside the issue of scale, the situations in the two countries are not comparable. I accept that, but David Taylor of the SFA told us in evidence that a considerable amount of money goes into football in England through the Football Foundation, which has largely grown out of the Football Trust. Roughly speaking, the Scottish Football Partnership is the Scottish equivalent of that organisation. What resources does the partnership have at its disposal annually? Do you envisage those resources being increased, as David Taylor suggested?
I understand that the partnership has about £5 million to £6 million at its disposal.
Annually?
No.
I know from experience that there was a difficulty in that money's being released—there were blockages in the system. Is that money now able to flow as freely as you would like it to flow?
It will be able to do so very shortly. The legal situation has been clarified in the past two months—I think—and that money will start to flow in the very near future.
I think that I am right in saying that those funds come largely from the old betting tax levy on the pools. Was there some residue of that in the funding?
No, that is not my understanding.
All right. How will the £5 million or £6 million eventually be disbursed? How will it be supplemented in future years via the Scottish Football Partnership?
There is a partnership in place that I believe is composed of two people from the SFA and two people from sportscotland. They will make the decisions on how that money is disbursed. I suspect that the youth action plan might well be a priority for them.
I can see that that might be the case, although David Taylor did not mention that in his evidence to us. He said:
At the moment, our priority is the youth action plan, so I am not sure that I would want to do that at this stage. The partnership board will meet for the first time later this month and we will see what comes out of that meeting. Perhaps the board will come to us with suggestions about other ways in which it can operate or ideas about other money that it might be useful for it to have to disburse for the purposes you are talking about. However, the board has not yet come to us and I do not want to commit it to anything.
Yes, but my question was whether you would put in any funding at this stage.
That is the point that I am making. If the board were to come back to us and make a case for us to do so, we would consider it.
I want to ask you about your response to question 20, which dealt with school sports facilities. You will remember that two weeks ago I raised in a members' business debate the issue of the loss of playing fields. A crucial aspect of that—and of developing youth football and community sports facilities—relates to the need to ensure that such facilities, whether they have been improved or have been built from scratch, are available to the community for as long as possible on any particular day. Your response says:
The PPP guidelines that local authorities receive make it clear that it is expected that any such facilities should be available for community use, as other local authority facilities might be available. Recently, there have been meetings to try to thrash out the details surrounding that situation and we are starting to make some progress in relation to the PPP contracts that are being let. The situation will improve in time but, at the moment, we have asked local authorities to be clear about the arrangements and to ensure that a requirement for appropriate access to the facilities is written into the contracts.
That might emerge in relation to the phase 2 or phase 3 PPP contracts, but the original contracts relate to facilities that have been built and are being maintained by the companies that took part in building the facilities. My question was about those facilities, which are for whatever reason not being made as widely available as possible. How can you encourage the operators of those facilities or the local authorities to ensure that access is maximised?
It is clear that the Executive intends that local authorities ensure that access is maximised; we have encouraged them to ensure that the facilities are used and operated in that way. If there is anything more that we can do to assist them in that regard, we are more than happy to consider it. However, we are absolutely clear that facilities should be available for community use just as any other local authority facilities might be.
I have a couple of questions; the first is very general and the second a bit more specific. The first question relates to how football is perceived. We would all accept that Government has little scope for intervention, but football is our national sport and is perceived as such—even if in recent years we have not had the success we might have hoped for. How does the Scottish Executive feel about football as the national sport? Does that status entitle football to enhanced interest and support from the Executive—more than that which is given to other sports—or does the Executive not consider things in those terms?
The Executive wants to be fair to all sports. All sports have a role in boosting our national confidence when we do well, and in encouraging people to be more active. The latter is a key aim in our health and well-being agenda.
I understand that participation in football is likely to be higher than it is in other sports because your programmes to increase participation in sports will have a greater impact on football. Is that, in essence, the Executive's approach?
That is probably the case. We want to encourage participation in all sports; people will decide for themselves which sports they want to participate in. However, we acknowledge that football is our national game and we obviously want to encourage it.
You are clear that you do not consider football to be a special case.
Football is our national sport and we recognise it as such. The importance of sport to many of our communities is there to be seen, and football is our biggest spectator sport. It is not only about running around and kicking a ball about on a Saturday; it is also about the number of people who go along to watch it. If I can speak on behalf of my colleagues, we all watch Scotland's progress with a great deal of interest, every time we play.
In hope and expectation.
Sometimes they are realised.
Indeed.
And we are delighted when that happens.
I also wanted to ask a more specific question on a response to the committee's questionnaire. Question 10 was:
No—we are not saying that. We are mindful that the vast majority of professional football clubs are private companies, so I am not sure that the test that Murdo Fraser mentioned is one that we would always want to apply.
There may be competition issues with trying to impose higher standards through the licensing scheme.
I am sure that that is true.
I will pick up on a couple of points on Executive policy and on some of the comments that the SPL and SFA made when they gave evidence to us. I am sure that you have had an opportunity to consider the letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a copy of which Lex Gold sent to the committee, about some of the SPL's proposals on the assistance that could be provided to football clubs. One example, which Lex Gold also gave in his evidence to the committee, is a proposal to set aside the money that clubs must pay for policing. Have you considered the points that the SPL made to the chancellor and are you seeking to take any of them forward?
Obviously, the matters that were raised with the chancellor are matters with which he would have to deal, so they are not areas in which we would necessarily intervene.
So you have given no consideration to the points that the SPL raised.
We have certainly considered them, but the SPL has raised them with the chancellor, so it is for the chancellor to respond to them.
Does the Executive have an opinion on them?
The Executive thinks that they are very interesting proposals.
Thank you for your very helpful answer.
Over the 10 years, it will be £1.2 million.
So that is £1.2 million over 10 years, which works out at roughly £120,000 a year.
Yes, that is right.
How did you arrive at that figure?
It was determined before I became the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, so I will have to let John Gilmour answer that.
It was a consolidation of 10 years of the then Exchequer spend, principally on investment in the development plan for women's and girls' football.
So it was money that was already available for footballing purposes.
Yes.
I ask because, in her opening comments, the minister referred to the Executive as a major contributor to the youth action plan. Is giving £1,000 a week to youth football development in Scotland a major contribution?
It is a major contribution when it is added to the lottery funding for youth football, which is also public funding. That funding, added to the Executive's Exchequer contribution, comes to some £12.2 million. The two contributions are fairly significant.
Has all the money that is to come from the lottery funding stream been identified now?
Yes, I believe that it has.
When the plan was announced, the Big Lottery Fund was not aware that the money was to be allocated for that purpose.
It is certainly aware of that now.
My third point concerns facilities. How much of the £230 million that is being invested in the national and regional facilities programme is to come from the Exchequer?
There will be about £50 million of Exchequer funding.
Is that Exchequer funding or does it include lottery funding?
I am sorry; apparently, it is a combination of lottery and Exchequer funding.
How much of it will be Executive funding?
More than £28 million of it—just under £30 million.
Which of the national and regional sports facilities that have been identified for funding through the programme are specifically football related?
There will be indoor football facilities in Falkirk, in the east of Scotland at Hunters Hall, in Grampian, at Toryglen in Glasgow and at Ravenscraig in Lanarkshire.
I notice that a couple of the projects have gone to review. Local authorities are concerned about the amount of money that they will have to contribute to the facility programmes. Will you comment on that? I notice that the Hunters Hall project has gone to review because of concerns from City of Edinburgh Council about whether it can come up with the finance that it must find.
My understanding—no doubt John Gilmour will correct me if I am wrong—is that it was always understood that when local authorities bid for the pots of money, they would have to say what their contribution would be. That has always been clear. If there is a problem now, local authorities will have to address it. We are happy to discuss that with them to see how best to proceed.
You are confident that the timescales that were set for the projects that were football related will be kept to.
I am conscious that in at least one of the projects there is a planning issue, which is outwith anything that we can do—indeed, two of the projects might have a problem in relation to planning, which we cannot deal with. Other than that, all the projects are progressing well.
One good thing about coming last is that most of the questions have been asked, so I will return to what is fast becoming our second national sport—making unfair comparisons between what happens here and what happens south of the border.
They have not raised those concerns with me directly. I do not know whether they have raised them with the department. They have been discussed in the implementation steering group. We must be careful about what we do with public money. We have many calls on money from a great number of organisations and sporting governing bodies, so it is important that when money is allocated we are confident that it can be used for the purpose for which the bid was made. I do not think that our processes are unnecessarily complicated or that there are too many hoops. The processes that we have are fair and transparent, which is the most important thing. I really do not accept that criticism.
If the bodies were to come to you with suggestions about how their governance arrangements might be improved or altered would you be prepared to consider whether there is scope to review the controls?
I am always happy to talk to governing bodies about issues concerning their sport, whether to do with governance, funding, facilities or anything else. Since I have been in post, I have made a point of speaking to as many of the governing bodies as I can. There are a great many in Scotland, so I am still getting round them.
Thank you. I am sure that Mr Gold and Mr Taylor will be reassured by that offer from the minister.
I might want to be proactive and to discuss some of the points raised in evidence from the organisations to see whether there is a problem or a misunderstanding that we can help them with.
That is helpful. Are you planning to bid for any future championships, with or without the Irish?
I could not say at this point. I am sure that the convener has heard me say this before, but we genuinely want to establish Scotland as a country that can stage major events. We are always looking for events that it would be appropriate and possible for us to stage here, and where possible we will work with the governing bodies of sports to try to encourage such events in Scotland.
Before we finish this session, I hand over to Mike Watson, who will record a declaration of interests.
I am glad that you did not ask me about Euro 2008. I will not express an opinion on that.
We should probably congratulate Eddie Thompson, the chairman of Dundee United, on his appearance in the birthday honours list.
I will pass that on.
I thank the minister and John Gilmour for their written evidence and for their oral evidence, which was extremely helpful.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—