Enterprise and Culture Committee, 14 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Official Report 292KB pdf

---

Football Inquiry

The agenda says that, under this item, we will consider issues arising in respect of our report into Scottish football. I will take guidance on this but my gut feeling is that we have not heard a proper cross-section of oral evidence and so we are not yet able to identify many of the issues. In particular, we have not heard from supporters. We should invite club supporters, representatives of the tartan army and people from Supporters Direct to give evidence. I have also had an informal offer from Frank McAveety, who was motivated by the evidence from the Scottish Football Association and others, to come and give his views on the matter, as a former minister and Patricia Ferguson's immediate predecessor. I feel that we should take that additional evidence before we agree on the key issues for our report, but I am entirely in the hands of the committee.

It would be useful to have the evidence that the convener mentioned before we finalise our report. I am conscious that we could go on taking evidence on the matter for eternity, but I agree that the groups that the convener mentioned are key ones. However, we should still conclude the report before the summer recess, given that the inquiry has been on-going for a considerable time. We have received a wealth of written evidence to back up the oral evidence. There are clear areas on which broad agreement can be found in the evidence and on which we can make recommendations. My main concern is about the timetable.

I agree with the convener: we should invite the Scottish Federation of Football Supporters Clubs and Supporters Direct to give evidence. I am not sure to what extent the tartan army is constituted—I do not even know whether it has a committee or whether if somebody buys a scarf and a ticket for an away game, they automatically become a member. Seriously, I do not know whether there is a formal body but, if there is, it would be fine to invite it to give evidence.

Members may feel that my next suggestion would get us into the matter too deeply, but I would like to hear from the Scottish Junior Football Association—which, despite its name, is not for under-16s but for non-league semi-professional clubs—because of the pyramid system that it has tried. The day after the SFA gave evidence two weeks ago, its annual general meeting voted decisively not to allow any change and not to allow the first brick in building a pyramid. I would like to hear what the SJFA has to say on that specific issue. We could keep the session narrow and restrict it to how the SJFA fits into the pyramid system. It is disappointing that, after that first chink of light came through the door, the first step to opening it was not taken. I would like the issue to be explored.

The Scottish Football League has also voted to introduce re-election to the third division, which means that if a club finishes bottom of the third division for two consecutive years, it will go to associate membership and could drop out into no league whatever. That, too, goes against the idea of a pyramid system, despite the fact that the three football bodies that gave evidence to us said that they were in favour of a pyramid system.

I have concerns about where the inquiry is going; I feel that it lacks focus. We have covered a range of issues to do with the structure of the SFA in which we and the Executive have no policy locus. We now have a good opportunity to focus on some of the key issues that have materialised in the evidence, particularly those in which there is a public policy interest, so that, in taking any further evidence, we can develop those aspects in more detail, rather than take the broad-brush approach that we have taken to date.

I do not disagree, but, to some extent, the committee has been fairly clear about where the inquiry is going—we are considering the aspects of organised football with which the public sector interacts and to which it gives money. We should maintain that focus, because that is the only issue in which we have any locus. However, that gives us the rationale to talk about governance issues, such as structures, youth development and development of facilities, which, for me, are the key issues anyway.

I have some sympathy with what Michael Matheson said. In the evidence that we took from the Executive, an awful lot of the responses in effect were, "That is a matter for the game rather than for us." I agree with the suggestion that we should narrow our focus to areas in which public policy has a role.

I also have a concern about timing. I recognise that the inquiry is Richard Baker's baby, so he is keen for it to be born before it grows too old in the womb, but the summer recess is in only two weeks' time. We still have a lot to do before we are at the stage of being able to publish a report.

I accept that point. I also accept that it is time to consider focusing more on some issues. To be honest, I would love us to be able to make recommendations on the finances of SPL clubs, but we just cannot do that. I realise that we will not be able to do that, so we can perhaps focus on that issue less.

To some extent I disagree about the committee's role in governance issues. Although our role is not to make detailed recommendations about the SFA's governance arrangements, members will recall that we raised some broad questions about the Scottish Rugby Union's governance because that impacted on the way in which public money was spent. That is why governance issues were part of the youth action plan that was agreed with the Executive. Therefore, we are entitled to include broad issues of governance in our report. I will continue to argue that point.

I agree with the consensus that has developed among members that we should focus on issues that affect public sector involvement, such as infrastructure and the building up of partnerships with local agencies. We should also consider accountability issues. That would bring in Supporters Direct, which would be bound to highlight the issue of the direction of professional clubs, but we can be quite clear about our role in considering accountability issues.

If we accept that we will be unable to complete our report before the summer recess, we should have another shot at setting a clear timescale, given that our original commitments for the inquiry were made months ago.

There is broad consensus about the need to take additional oral evidence. We will not necessarily take evidence from the specific organisations that Mike Watson suggested, but we will hear from a number of sectors, including a cross-section of supporters, the Scottish Junior Football Association and so on. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take the bulk of that evidence after the summer recess, as the chances of our getting things organised for next week or the following week are not great.

That brings me to my second point, which is that we need a timetable for the inquiry, as Richard Baker rightly pointed out. We need to be clear of the inquiry by the autumn if for no other reason than because we will be required then to consider the bankruptcy bill, which will take up a lot of time. We must also finish off our business growth inquiry and start our employability inquiry. I suggest that we work towards completing our final report on the football inquiry before the October recess at the very latest. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That will allow us to work to a definite and reasonable timetable.

In the light of the written and oral comments that we have received from various bodies, I believe that it is more important that we get our report right than that we publish it quickly. We need to be clear about what we want to say when we come to write the report. Therefore, once we have organised the additional evidence sessions—the bulk of which will probably be in early September—we should set aside a session in mid-September or so in which we can discuss what issues we want to highlight in our report and what we want the report to focus on. After that, we can ask the clerks to prepare a draft report. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that everybody is happy with that. Excellent.