Official Report 305KB pdf
Item 2 is on the Scottish Rugby Union. We have three panels of witnesses this afternoon. The purpose of this afternoon's evidence session is for the committee to find out about the state of Scottish rugby, with emphasis on its future. The motto of my old school was "respice, prospice"—"look backward, look forward". I think that we will concentrate on the "prospice" rather than the "respice" this afternoon. I hope that I pronounced that Latin properly.
Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here. Our appearance before the Enterprise and Culture Committee provides Scottish Rugby with an opportunity to explain its plans for the future in support of sport 21. We believe that we will play our part in sports development and thereby help to improve the health and fitness of Scottish communities in general and of young people in particular.
Does Fred McLeod or Ian McGeechan want to say a few words?
I have nothing to add.
No.
We will move to questions.
The governance working party that I set up at a special general meeting has an independent chairman and is made up of nine or 10 individuals from across the spectrum of Scottish rugby. It has met on several occasions; it has deliberated and reached conclusions and is now in the process of writing up its recommendations for submission to us next week.
What is the timescale for consideration of the recommendations and for implementing those that are accepted?
We will consider the recommendations almost immediately. We will set up a special general meeting to take the recommendations to the clubs and they will decide on them.
The report will be tabled on Monday and the general committee will meet the working party next Wednesday. Thereafter, the report will form the basis of the special general meeting, which will be held on Sunday 10 April. The report will go to the special general meeting as tabled, but the committee will have the opportunity to propose amendments to it. As the president has said, the report and any amendments will be considered by the clubs at that SGM. At the end of the day, the issue will be for the clubs to decide.
Good afternoon, gentlemen, and thank you for attending.
It is most important that we have a strategy that has a wide base from which comes a community game that develops and retains rugby players, and that we have a talent-identification line that aims for world-class performance standards. That will ensure that the strategy is geared to enabling us to have a strong clubs and schools base that encourages participation, and a strong professional base on which we can build our performance. The integration of those two bases is important, and we envisage that it will be achieved—particularly for the 17-to-21 age group—through the support structures in coaching and teaching and the high-performance support structures, through which we have links with area institutes and the Scottish Institute of Sport. That will lead into a full professional programme.
It sounds as though that will be great when everything goes well. What arrangements are you putting in place to manage the inevitable tensions and to prevent them from spilling over into public discussions?
It is important for the governing body to understand that it is part of sport in Scotland. We must introduce into our communities sport first and rugby second. I have often said that I see myself as a director of sport as much as I see myself as a director of rugby. If we are to do that, we must establish support programmes that allow things to happen.
I will press the other two panel members a little, because I do not yet have a feeling for how the difficult bits will be managed. What has been described is fine when all goes swimmingly, but what is the governing body doing to consider how to manage the difficult issues when they inevitably arise?
It is extremely difficult to answer that before we have announced the outcome of the governance working party, which is in line with UK Sport's guidelines on governance for governing bodies in sport. You are right to say that tensions will arise as we go forward. We have tensions between the professional and club levels and between the professional and international levels, which we must deal with as best we can. People are always waiting to criticise when a decision is made for right or for wrong.
That answer was helpful.
In many ways, Christine May's final question addressed the subject of my question. The strategy that Ian McGeechan described, and which is described in the submission, is excellent because it will encourage participation and excellence. However, as Christine May suggested, unity of purpose is required if the sport is to achieve that strategy. Despite the tensions, does that unity of purpose exist when we go past some of the arguments? Are you optimistic that a new governing structure will help to achieve unity of purpose?
It is interesting that you use the expression "unity of purpose". Ten years ago, I was involved in establishing the first executive board at Murrayfield, and part of our mission statement referred to "unity of purpose". I think that there has always been unity of purpose, but there have been tensions between the two main bodies within the current structure, namely the general committee and the executive board. The governance working party should establish a way forward whereby such tensions can be eliminated and we can work together in the best interests of Scottish rugby.
The operational structure is very important. As you can see from our submission, we deal with 14 regions, so we are trying to align ourselves with some of sportscotland's work in that regard. We are considering regionalising further; that is, making the regions smaller so that they reflect the needs of particular areas. Those regional groups would include representatives of schools, clubs and local authorities as well as professionals from the SRU.
That strikes me as being exactly the right strategy. I know that other sports are considering adopting such a regionalised strategy in order to involve local partners more. Football is considering that approach, which seems to be the right way forward; it is good to hear that rugby shares that agenda. You have important partners in sportscotland and the local authorities, with involvement at regional level. You have, I presume, been able to carry on liaising with those bodies during the transitional period to ensure that there is still confidence in the strategy.
Absolutely. We have been in constant touch with our partners, including EventScotland, the local authorities and sportscotland in particular. Naturally, there are also our bankers. We have moved forward steadily since the events of last month.
I have been examining some of the figures. It would be helpful for the committee if you could describe the anomalies between the "Figures from the IRB annual census of playing statistics 2004" and the figures from the Genesis report. There is quite a disparity between them. The IRB report mentions that there are nearly 50,000 pre-teen male players, which I find staggering. There seem to be a lot of zeroes in some of the numbers that are cited. Could you give us an idea of what the accurate figures are, through to senior level?
The anomaly relates to long-term player development, which is fundamental. It is about having fun and introducing the sport across the board. We have delivered Ford Foundation touch-rugby tournaments all over the country, and approximately 70,000 primary school children have been involved in activities that allowed them to try out the sport. It is about making that part of the active schools work at primary level.
Is there a reason for avoiding introduction of the contact version of the sport at primary-school level, when children are trying different sports under the curriculum?
No. We are very keen to have an integrated rugby curriculum. As you know, we have to carry out a risk-management exercise when rugby teams go out on a Saturday. After all, it would be wrong not to provide a clear introduction to technical elements such as contact, tackling and scrummaging that require strength and technique. If we do that, we will know the criteria for introducing and developing such aspects to ensure that a child can control the forces that are part of the game. We will also be able to provide a whole view of anything that is introduced and how it fits into the bigger picture.
So—you link safety with the physical fitness that is needed to play the game. That follows the old adage that one should be fit enough to take one's knocks; indeed, when I played rugby, it did not matter whether you were fit enough or not, because you got the knocks anyway.
We want to introduce a number of initiatives, including a scheme that would pay experts—who might well be schoolteachers—to deliver training. We need to be able to provide expertise and after-school club activity. I have to say that it would be unfair to describe the curriculum simply as a national rugby curriculum; it should be part of an integrated physical education programme for youngsters' development, which would cover elements such as balance, speed and natural running technique. It does not matter whether the emphasis is on gymnastics or on another activity in which children have to control their movement; a child with such control will be in a strong position to succeed at sport.
I have been approached by many north-east clubs about a change in the funding rules for travel. Your model for different leagues and so on shows that that funding matter has been raised with your body and will have to be addressed. I presume that the clubs in the 14 regions that you mentioned will operate at a lower level of competitiveness and skills. However, the national team will need to be supported by a system of fairly strong national leagues that are based on quality, and by funding for coaching at various clubs around the country. Will your strategy document address that?
I believe that the strategy document has addressed it. In order to develop youngsters, we have introduced a very successful pathway between clubs and schools. We want any such approach to be club based. The first round of selection from the pathway would give us 18 teams, including school teams. From those 18 teams, we would choose six whose membership would provide us with international representation.
Perhaps your colleagues would care to comment.
I do not have much to add. We have a good professional team that will be strengthened by regionalisation.
I genuinely believe that the staff structure at Murrayfield can fully support Ian McGeechan's proposals and that we can make progress in the game at all levels.
My questions are directed to any of you who care to answer.
The president may wish to comment on the events of last month if he feels that they are important but, in effect, what happened last month was not related to the business plan for 2005 to 2009—other issues resulted in the resignations of the chairman and the chief executive. The main thrust of the strategic plan is still very much on course. Governance issues have arisen on which there are differences of opinion between the executive board and the general committee, but I hope that they will be resolved by the new working party, which will reach its conclusions next week. I see no reason at all why the main thrust of the strategic plan should be different from what it was previously.
I agree with Fred McLeod. The events of last month were traumatic and probably involved a serious breakdown in communication that developed into mistrust. However, we can now move forward. As I have said frequently, I would like to draw a line in the sand and look beyond it to the future. I am an optimist and I genuinely believe that our plans are not substantially different from those that we had prior to last month. An SGM has given us the authority to proceed with our plans. As I said earlier, I believe that we have the staff and the ambition to drive Scottish rugby forward.
What came out of last year's planning was that we need to be clear about the direction in which we want to take the sport. If that direction had not been there, I would probably not be sitting here now. The sport is very important to me. The delivery mechanism that the sport offers through its club network and its links with schools has exciting potential for the sport 21 initiatives. The governing body would be doing itself a disservice if it were not thinking along those lines. If rugby does not integrate itself with the bigger sporting picture in Scotland and we stay isolated or introverted, ultimately we will go only a certain way.
I am grateful to all the witnesses for their answers. We have discussed the matter previously and all members of the committee are of the view that we want to look to the future. You have clarified that the strategic direction that had been emerging remains largely in place. Is that a fair—if simplistic—summary?
In the coming weeks, we will advertise for a chief executive, with a view to that person being in post as soon as possible after 1 July. The SRU's annual general meeting is on 24 June and we believe that we must have someone in place immediately thereafter. That process is under way and the post will be advertised in the weeks ahead.
We have a four-year strategy to enable us to be clear about the direction in which we want to take the sport. There is not a big switch that we can just turn. We are assessing what we have and trying to clarify the difference between development and performance so that the roles are clear. An enormous amount of good practice is out there in clubs and schools. It is necessary to recognise and develop that and to put down best practice models on which we can work with other regions—for example to show a local authority, a school, a club or a group of clubs what is possible. There will be a transition from what we have, which is, in effect, a programme of regional development officers in which each person covers both development and performance. The initial stages will involve separating the two elements so that it is clear whether someone's role is to be part of the development programme, which is very much club based, or whether they are part of the performance programme, which is very much about the individual, talent identification and team and player development. The aim over the four years is to establish approximately 14 regional development groups.
It would be useful to hear more about franchising. The briefing that was provided to committee members by the Scottish Parliament information centre indicates that, in the 2003-04 season, the three professional teams accounted for 33 per cent of Scottish Rugby's spend compared with 5 per cent on the national game and 10 per cent on the international game. I assume that those figures are broadly agreed.
Part of one of the motions at the SGM was that we should have franchises in place by the end of February. That is totally impractical and for that reason the motion was subsequently amended. We are speaking to potential franchisees. Those discussions may well take some time, but there are interested parties. We are also talking to potential partners, as distinct from franchisees. There are different concepts in each of the pro team areas. We want investment in Scottish sport from whatever level and we are actively pursuing that.
It is obvious that governance is key, both in the immediate situation and going into the future, particularly when the organisation is supported by public money via sportscotland.
That is the key date when those decisions will be taken. The next stage will be to have the new structures in place in time for the annual general meeting on 24 June.
Does that mean that sportscotland's resumption of funding should begin from April or June?
I like to think so.
We are talking about the structures and the programmes that we have in place. We had some additional sportscotland funding for the two coaches on our performance programmes. There will be no change to those and no change to the programme that is progressing as we speak. Everything about which we have been in conversation with sportscotland in relation to the community and our performance side is still taking place.
You are giving out a strong message of business as usual and saying that governance is a work in progress that will have a positive resolution. There is good will in Scotland that those matters should be resolved.
The active schools project has been very successful in primary schools. We are concerned about how we can develop that into the participation programmes from secondary 1 upwards—that is part of the physical education programme and the involvement of team sports in the curriculum.
I share your view about PE teachers. At the moment, however, the problem is that we have a great shortage of PE teachers. If we are trying to move fairly quickly on those fronts, some imaginative work needs to be done.
If we look at an integrated curriculum, we will see that what we have been trying to do in certain areas is not to have club age-grade programmes where there are school age-grade programmes. We do not want to see children being put on a rugby field or whatever on a Saturday and the same again on a Sunday. It is important that we have an integrated development programme for the involvement of children in the sport.
I understand that you are developing a national registration scheme. From a shared agenda perspective, would such a scheme help in securing governance and accountability at national level as well as ensuring club participation at community level?
Yes. One of the difficulties that we have had is that the numbers that were on the IRB charts came from a club accreditation scheme, which means that, although one could fill in boxes, the accuracy of the numbers was probably dubious. If we register all players in a scheme, as we are doing now, and register all youngsters, we will also want to register their support programmes. We will want to register information such as who is involved and when and where they play. Such a register will enable us to monitor the involvement of children and adult players and when, why or where they drop out of the sport. We can then identify the areas that we will have to go into and try to ensure that we make a difference.
Does that apply to accountability as well?
Yes. We will get figures that are near accurate.
I would like to take Mr Dixon at his word when he says that what is in the past is in the past and that we should draw a line in the sand and move on. I go along with that. If what we are talking about is the future of Scottish rugby, however, surely one of the issues is that those who are charged with its advancement—if I can put it that way—must be seen to carry the support of rugby as a whole. They must carry the support of the clubs, the players and, indeed, the supporters, about whom I will say a bit more in a moment.
I take your point. The question is difficult to answer. Obviously there was a lead-up to the decision being taken and we took the view that if the decision was to be taken, we must put things in place or go down the road towards putting things in place. That is what we did. As president, I had a duty of care to ensure that the SRU's on-going business was as seamless as possible in the circumstances. I took on the personal responsibility of driving forward in a positive direction in taking those steps. We had to act quickly to try to reassure individuals that there was not a rudderless ship and we had to put in place people who could take control in the short term and guide us forward through a difficult time. That was the basis of the decision that I drove through.
I will not dwell on the matter, but is the approach that you describe still being taken? You will have seen the reports in the weekend media about the executive board's decision to guarantee financial backing for the three district clubs until 2008, which has been the subject of criticism because it could be regarded as pre-empting discussions on matters such as governance. That is not just my reading of the situation; it is that of fairly senior people in the game. For example, Kenny Hamilton, the spokesman for the premier 1 forum, said that he was astonished and David Johnston, who is someone whom I think that everyone who knows anything about rugby respects and who is involved in the governance working party, said that he was "staggered" that a transitional group could take such a fundamental decision.
I prefer to let Fred McLeod answer your question, given that we are talking about a decision of the executive board.
First, the executive board is not an interim board; it is the existing executive board, on which interim appointees are sitting. There has been very much an attempt to do business as usual—people might contest that, but it is a fact. For the first time, there are general committee representatives on the executive board. We took the decision, which I hope that I have explained. We did not explain it in our press release and I have accepted that that was perhaps not wise—we should have said more than we did. However, members will have gathered from what I said that we could not tell people about the Celtic League accord, which was agreed yesterday and makes a tremendous difference to our ability to finance three professional teams.
That is very interesting—it does not have a great deal to do with the question, but it is interesting. I hope that the extra revenues that you mentioned come into the game, but for the good of the game I also hope that we can overcome the fears that were being expressed by some fairly influential people in the game as recently as Saturday.
We have seen very little of that in the past. The first time that the unions will benefit will be in 2007, when the International Rugby Board has decided that there will be an equal allocation between the top 10 nations. That is inequitable, in as much as the southern hemisphere countries do not suffer when the world cup matches are played in the autumn. In 1999 and 2003 the matches were all played in our autumn—the same will happen in 2007—so it is inequitable that South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina should be compensated to the same extent as we are.
I take that point.
That is hard to answer, but there has been a change in culture. Many other opportunities are available to individuals on a Saturday afternoon, not least of which is the chance to watch a big rugby match on Sky television if they so desire. Youngsters and adults are doing different things on Saturday afternoons.
I accept that, but I find the situation strange. I would have thought that a team such as Borders, which is situated in the heartland of rugby in Scotland, would have been able to attract more spectators and increase its available revenue. From what I read in the newspapers, it seems that attendances barely get into four figures.
Another factor is the timing of games, which is often geared to the needs of television. One of the big issues is games such as the one against Wales being played at 4 pm on a Sunday afternoon. That is not the club scene, but the Setanta deal puts restrictions on our professional teams' timings. We hope that we can persuade the company to change that, but I doubt it. The success of Edinburgh Rugby last year, when the side was winning, was due to the fact that the side played regularly at Meadowbank on a Friday evening, which attracted crowds of between 2,500 and 5,000 depending on the opposition.
There is no doubt that if we produce winning rugby we will develop interest. Part of the strategy for the future is to create as strong a base as possible for success both in participation and on the international field. The funds behind every international team are significant. I have always told players that there is no hiding place when they get on the field at Murrayfield. Each player, wherever he comes from in the world, has a system behind him that we have to be able to deliver. That is why it is so important that the excellence and elite side of what we do comes out of the community side. We need to develop high-quality, high-performance support structures. Such structures must be in place to allow players—we are not talking about a large number of players—to achieve success at international level. That is very important. However, with my ex-schoolmaster's hat on, I believe that participation and getting youngsters enthralled and enthused by what they see on a rugby field—whether it be a club, school or international field—is important if the sport is to move forward.
I do not want to go over the ground that you have covered so effectively, as regards development of the game, but I would like to be a bit parochial. I was at the Scotland-Australia match at Hampden Park in November. I was struck by the fact that at half-time youngsters from Glasgow state schools were on the pitch showing their skills. I was surprised that such schools had any contact with rugby. That was symbolic, if nothing else. In Glasgow, we are afflicted with appalling blaes pitches. Such pitches may be just about acceptable for football, but one could not possibly play rugby on them. Leaving aside the other issues on which we have touched—the amount of time and the number of coaches and PE teachers available—if you are trying to build state school rugby in Glasgow, how do you deal with the fact that there must be a dearth of pitches on which you can begin to teach youngsters skills?
Team sports—soccer, rugby and others—require a field on which they can be played. We should talk to other sports and have a joint facilities strategy. There are now third-generation artificial pitches that have been passed for the playing of rugby. If we had half a dozen or a dozen such pitches around Scotland on which people could play rugby and soccer, we would be able as part of a community programme to use those as a basis for activity. We need a piece of grass or a surface on which both sports can be played. The shape of the posts at each end is irrelevant.
My final question is more general and relates to the Scottish Institute of Sport, which is mentioned in our papers. Mr McGeechan may be the best person to comment on the issue. Rugby is one of the sports that are supported by the Scottish Institute of Sport. What effect has that support had? Has it been effective in bringing through more young players? I see that Alastair Dempster of sportscotland is in the public gallery this afternoon, so I should be careful when I say this, but I understand that the institute is reviewing the number of sports that it supports. I do not know whether rugby will continue to be supported. Do you think that it should? How does the support that the institute provides fit in with what you are doing?
I should declare an interest—I am on the board of the Scottish Institute of Sport. The institute has worked very well. The younger players who are coming through—Tom Philip, Alastair Hogg and one or two others—are institute players. The support programmes behind players are the key to developing them quickly. This is one of the major issues on which we need to remain focused. The institute programmes are directed at our 17 to 21-year-olds, in particular.
We have heard a lot about ambition, but I would like to turn briefly to sustainable financial performance. The Genesis report stated that the union had not tried hard enough to acquire public sector funding on a par with the other home nations. What are you going to do to address that? Is there any risk to the ownership of Murrayfield stadium?
Ian McGeechan might want to speak about what we are doing with local authorities in regard to the regional development of the game and how active we are on that. We are obviously also working closely with sportscotland, as you will understand.
If we are looking outwards, we should be a meaningful part of education and health programmes. Seminars are taking place on youth services and criminal justice, and sometimes what disappoints me most is that there is no involvement for sport. If we are talking about the problems that we have with our youth, sport is a major answer. As a governing body, we have to see it like that. We do not deserve support if we do not understand the direction that we have to take to support sport in our community. If we are doing that, we should be part of a wider network of support services that includes health, education and the development of youth.
I thank all three witnesses for their written and oral evidence, which was extremely helpful and much appreciated.
I thank you and your committee for allowing us to come here this afternoon to state our case. As I am acutely aware, governance is a big issue. You can be assured that, as that process is evolving, we shall keep you informed.
I let that evidence session run longer simply because I thought that it was elucidating the subject. However, I remind members that we have the first eight sections of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill to deal with this afternoon, and we anticipate that the minister will be here sometime around 3.30, so I might not be able to be so generous with the next panel of witnesses.
Thank you for inviting me here today. The simple point that I want to make is that I am here to talk about sport. I am passionate about sport. I believe that it can play an important role in helping Scottish people become healthier and more confident. I am here to give my views on how we can help Scotland become more successful at sport.
You have heard the evidence from Mr Dixon, Mr McLeod and Mr McGeechan. On the future, rather than the past, did they say anything with which you fundamentally disagree, or do you think that the past problems with governance and finance can be sorted out?
You will not be surprised to hear that I think that the future is quite rosy. Many people throughout Scotland—the various stakeholders in the game—put in a lot of work to produce a new strategic plan, which has been endorsed by the clubs. I am a great believer in the plan, because I was heavily involved in producing it and I am encouraged that it has been endorsed. However, I am concerned about governance; unless we have the right governance for Scottish rugby we will simply repeat the mistakes that we have made over the past few years. I noted with interest Mr Dixon's comments about the difference of opinion between the general committee and the executive board. The new governance that has been recommended is in effect similar to the old in that there could be two bodies running the game in Scotland. I am concerned that although we have a great strategic plan, we do not have the right kind of structural governance in terms of decision making to implement it in the right way.
Do you anticipate that the working party recommendations will take us back to square 1, rather than sorting the situation out?
We will have to wait to see what the working party comes up with. It is working on an amendment that came to the special general meeting, which sounds good on paper. It sounds like it will move us forward, but it raises great practical issues. The fundamental point is that we are not moving forward with the model of governance that UK Sport states clearly that a governing body the size of that for Scottish rugby should have. It is disappointing that although a working party that was set up at the end of last year by the general committee and the executive board called for a single decision-making body—in line with what UK Sport stated, with which those bodies agreed unanimously—that was strangely rejected and the clubs were not asked to take a view on it. I am concerned that, although the working party that has been put in place is claimed to be independent, it is not. There is every likelihood that, although the working party's recommendation looks okay on paper, it will in reality take us through the same scenarios that we have seen over the past five or 10 years.
What would be the implications of that?
We would be sitting here in four years' time debating why certain people were removed, how the game can be taken forward, what the strategic plan is and who is accountable for what. Recently, the decision was made to maintain the three professional teams and we will see whether that was the right decision. If it turns out not to have been the right decison, under the current structure and given the proposed amendment that the working party is considering, who will be accountable? Will it be the executive board or the council? UK Sport states clearly, and the working party of the general committee and the executive board agree, that there should be one body of people with the requisite skills—business people, rugby people and club people working together and being accountable. If mistakes were made, everyone would know exactly who was responsible and who was accountable. We would avoid the situation that we have had recently whereby the game in Scotland has been taken through the gutter. That is not what we want for Scottish sport in the future.
I ask you to comment on a couple of points that Gordon Dixon makes in his submission. First, one of his criticisms of the previous leadership and direction of the SRU is that
If we go back 15 or 20 years, Scottish rugby was a fairly straightforward sport. It was completely amateur and no money was involved. It is now a highly complex organisation and enterprise. We have talked about the professional game, the clubs, the international game and the commercial aspects. If anyone says that Scottish rugby is not a business, they are completely wrong. In his report at the end of the 1990s, Lord Mackay stated clearly that Scottish rugby was a business. People out there might say that we are too involved in business and that we should concentrate everything on rugby. That is a nice theory, but if we do not have the right financial base for the sport, we will have no sport. One only has to look at some of the football clubs to understand that.
If I understand you correctly, in essence, you are saying that the current structure is a recipe for conflict and that it is almost inevitable that tensions will spill over into conflict from time to time.
Yes, absolutely. Lord Mackay, in his report at the end of the 1990s, clearly understood that the game was becoming complex, given the professional and financial aspects, and that to have well-meaning, committed volunteers running a £20 million to £30 million business in their spare time simply would not work. Lord Mackay advocated setting up an executive board to run the SRU's day-to-day affairs and a general committee that would meet four times a year to discuss policy matters. Again, that is absolutely fine in theory, but in reality, it simply does not work, because we end up blurring policy and strategy. That is why we have had conflict between the general committee and the executive board and, ultimately, the removal of David Mackay.
Let us assume that the structural arrangements are changed in the next few months. Do you agree with my contention to the previous panel of witnesses that structural change alone will not allow the sport to progress? If so, in the light of your experience, what does your successor need to do to strike an appropriate balance between the various interests and stakeholders, not just those in the world of rugby but, crucially, those who work as partners with rugby?
Clearly, the right structure will not on its own be sufficient. We need a strong strategic plan, which I believe Scottish rugby now has. It must also have the right quality of people to implement the plan—I believe that Scottish rugby has excellent people who can deliver the plan. Fundamentally, the governance must be right—the right decision-making body with clear accountability is needed. In the past four or five years, Scottish rugby has not had that. I might be proved wrong, but I am concerned that the working group's recommendations will not deliver what UK Sport clearly states should be the governance structure for a governing body such as that which governs Scottish rugby. The executive should consider the recommendations carefully. I am surprised that there is no one on the so-called independent working group from sportscotland or from UK Sport to give expert advice on how to set up a governing body.
As you will have heard, the previous panel of witnesses gave a clear message that business is going on as usual and that work is in progress. Your points are worrying and I hope that they are not realised. Given that the committee, the Parliament and the Executive require public accountability for the state money that goes to sportscotland to support rugby in Scotland, what key tests should be in place to ensure that the governance is satisfactory and to provide accountability for the public money that goes into rugby?
I believe that public money should be invested in sport. As I said earlier, sport can play a vital role in tackling directly many of the key issues that Scotland faces, such as those of health, obesity, confidence and instilling the values that we want in our society. We should also invest more money in rugby because the nations that we are up against have significant investment behind them. However, fundamentally, there should not simply be a dole-out of money to help out unions or clubs that are in difficulty.
My question is similar to one that I asked the previous panel. I will ask about the tensions between the relatively amateur, volunteer-developed local club rugby and the need to develop the professional rugby business and to keep the show on the road. Will you talk about the proposed governance structure as you understand it and its ability to manage those tensions?
As the previous witnesses said, tension always exists between the different levels of the game. As Mr McLeod said, any decision that is made will be attacked by another party. If we get the grass-roots and professional elite levels right, they will support rather than fight each other. If the grass-roots level is right, that brings through players to compete at the highest level. If the highest level is right, that encourages more people to participate at the grass roots. The levels should not be in conflict.
In your suggested structure, you have a board member from either sportscotland or UK Sport. Who else would you want in a unified management structure?
I want to be clear: I was talking about the working party on governance. What I want—I think it would be sensible—is to have on the panel someone from UK Sport or sportscotland who specialises in setting up governance of sport governing bodies. At least someone from sportscotland or UK Sport should have the findings presented to them so that they can give a view on governance before the findings go to the vote.
Why did that not happen?
The process was derailed by a number of members of the general committee, who believed that they would lose some of their power under such a structure. To put it frankly, the fourteen members of the current general committee would not fit into four places.
You have argued cogently that rugby deserves its current funding—with perhaps more funding in the future if proper governance arrangements are put in place. You have argued strongly for what you believe the proper arrangements should be. However, if proper governance arrangements are not put in place, should the Scottish Executive think twice about continuing to fund rugby?
I sincerely hope that that will not happen. I hope that the governance structure will be put in place—let us hope that the working group can come up with it.
I want to ask a supplementary to David Davidson's questions. Obviously, rugby is not the only sport for which calls have been made for a radical change in governance. Many volunteers who have a passion for the sport are involved, and we could be asking them to vote for a change that would diminish their role. From your experience, are there lessons we can learn—not just for rugby but for sports in general—about how to take people along and how to allow them to be part of the change? How can we get people to be enthusiastic for change rather than resistant to it?
One way of achieving that at the top level lies in doing what we have just been talking about in relation to governance, which is to have volunteers involved directly in the key decisions of the organisation and in the strategy or the policies—call it what you will.
That was exceptionally helpful. We now move to our third panel of witnesses. Before us are two members of the general committee of the SRU: Archie Ferguson and Norman Douglas. We have received a written submission from Archie Ferguson, which has been circulated to committee members, along with a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am from the SRU's general committee. I am a borderer born and bred and I have represented the general committee for some six years now, as European rugby cup director and now as six nations director.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Archie Ferguson, vice-chair of Glasgow Rugby. I represent the Glasgow clubs, which form the biggest district, and I do much of the activity that my colleague described. I say simply that I do my best for Scottish Rugby, and that Glasgow Rugby is flourishing.
You are here primarily in your roles of general committee members. Mr Anderton was fairly critical of the general committee and of the current process for the working party and its membership. Basically, I think that he was suggesting that conclusions might have been reached already, which would be in contradiction of the guidelines that have been laid down by UK Sport. Would you like to comment on Mr Anderton's comments?
No—not really. You can draw your own conclusions from his evidence. I would say that the game has moved onwards and upwards. I am getting very positive messages from the clubs, the three professional teams in Scotland and the national team. We met the national players at the weekend of the game with France and some excellent comments came from that direction. We are highly focused on where we want to go.
I want to ask about the specific point that Phil Anderton made repeatedly, which was about the UK guidelines on governance, which state that there should be only one accountable body. He felt that having two bodies has been, and would continue to be, a recipe for disaster.
I will not pre-empt what the governance working party comes up with. That information will come out in the next two weeks. We in the general committee recognised the desirability of having only one governing body some time back and were working towards that end, but the past chairman and Phil Anderton prevented that from happening; we nominated two people to go on that body some six or seven months ago, but that was prevented by the chairman.
As a member of the governance working party, I am not at liberty to say what we will recommend, but I think that the Scottish rugby fraternity will be pleased with what comes out. I am surprised by Mr Anderton's comments about independence. There is a vested interest within the group—that interest is in rugby. The group is chaired by a respected member of the legal fraternity and full account has been taken of the recommendations on governance in sport.
It is extremely difficult for us to consider public accountability and the key issue of governance when the working group is on-going and no one can tell us anything. I respect the confidential nature of the group's work and I appreciate that you will want to announce your recommendations to your members in due course, but it would be helpful to us and to the public to hear a message that shows that you acknowledge UK Sport's position, which is that a single board would be helpful both for public accountability and governance. It would be most helpful if you could say whether you agree with that.
We are talking about a point of principle. Although we would not expect you to pre-empt your detailed recommendations at today's meeting—it would be unfair to ask you to do so—we would like to know whether the point of principle that UK Sport has outlined, which is that there should be only one governing body, will be adhered to.
I am bound by Sheriff Dunlop's plea for confidentiality, but I can say firmly that we are moving in that direction.
The general committee accepted that position a year ago. I sit on the new executive board on which there are some highly focused people. I am one of the so-called amateurs, but I run a business and make decisions daily; I can tell the committee that the best decisions are made at about 7 o'clock in the morning. As the governing body of the sport of rugby, we are in a business. The board might be an interim board, but we have a business to run and we are highly focused on that task.
How can the aspiration to have rugby at the centre of communities—as set out in the strategic plan and which Mr Ferguson repeats at the start of your submission—be made reality? An observation that many of us have made about the debate that has taken place in recent months is that a tremendously inward-looking approach has been taken by certain quarters, which is reflected in some of the comments that you have made in the past few minutes. I will not even begin to comment on whether the two people who were proposed for the committee were the right people; that may or may not be the case and it is not for me or for the committee to comment on that. Our discussions concern much higher stakes; they are about growing rugby and growing sport in Scotland.
I am here because I chair the Borders district committee, which has produced a development paper called "Alive and Kicking"—the "Kicking" refers to kicking the ball rather than people, as some would suggest. That document is first class and there is some excellent work going on. We monitor schools weekly and can tell on a Monday morning how many schoolchildren played school rugby in the district in the previous week. We have 500 children playing weekly.
Do you accept that what you do locally is inextricably linked with what happens at other levels, be it the professional level or the national game?
Absolutely.
Therefore, should not the bigger interest be in thinking about how that wider operation will be taken forward?
That is why it is important to have professional rugby throughout Scotland. The Borders professional team plays a huge role in the community in developing sport of all kinds.
Would an increase in the number of professional clubs be likely to result in a reduction in the number of local clubs?
No. If you lived in the Borders and did the work that I did, you would know that the community clubs—the town teams, as we call them—are very important. We all played for them and they are focal points in communities. I represent the communities—I stand for election annually—and they would never allow me to increase the number of professional clubs to the detriment of their town teams. Local rugby is an extremely important part of the community.
I remember playing against Borders teams as a boy and young man. Every village and town in the Borders seemed to have a team.
Yes. It has to be, because it is the next step up. All the boys aspire to get to that level and the town teams that they represent push them in that direction.
How should that be funded?
We need a leg up. We need help from the Government for youth development. My clubs, and businessmen within clubs who write cheques annually to fund the development officers, tell me that they need help and that they need partnership with the SRU, local authorities and the Government to keep the development officers in place and keep the kids in sport.
Would that be facilitated by the SRU?
Yes, but with a huge input from the local authorities. Scottish Borders Council is very supportive and puts money into our development work, but we need help nationally.
I will turn to Mr Ferguson. I thank you for your submission. In it you refer to abandoning certificated teaching of sport in schools. Can you expand on what you mean by that and how that would be replaced?
Physical education has, to some extent, gone down an academic route. I can speak with some authority as I am a former member of the group that introduced certificated physical education to schools some years ago. There has been misdirection to the extent that core physical education has suffered as a result. I despair when I see young people in gyms with pieces of paper analysing forward rolls. I would much rather see young people being physically involved. I have challenged Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which tends to examine physical activity from the point of view of management and curricular programmes rather than from the point of view of how fit and active young people are. In my submission, I allude to the need to address the physical education programme in schools to ensure that it meets the current needs of young people in respect of health, fitness and sport.
Would you support a move towards there being more compulsory hours of physical activity within the school week?
Yes. That manifestly has to happen because of the condition that some of our young people are in. In some schools in this country, young people who are sitting five highers have no physical activity in the school week. If there is also nothing happening after school, it is no wonder that they become obese, addicted to computers and so on. I would make physical education compulsory. The pendulum needs to move back from the academic drive to take account of the physical and social needs of young people today.
Following some of the comments that were made by Mr Anderton, you have made positive comments about how you view the governance structure going, although you cannot be explicit about that. It is clear that there are currently people involved in governance who have a vision and a supporting strategy, which encourages participation, so we can be optimistic about that. Mr Anderton also said that the SRU should look broadly at how it engages people from different backgrounds and different kinds of expertise in governance. Do you share his opinion that that should also be an aspiration? Should there be a new form of governance and some new people?
That is an interesting question. People in rugby come from a range of business backgrounds and a range of involvement in other activities. It is interesting to consider the background of our current non-executives and of the members of the general committee. People presume that because members of the general committee are volunteers, they do not have substantial professional jobs. In fact, sport is gaining from the expertise that those professional people bring to the game and they work in tandem with executives and non-executives. There is a good mix of people without our necessarily having to bring in people from other sports. That is not to say that we should not work very closely with other sports.
Nobody on the committee would use the term "volunteer" disparagingly. It is interesting that you say that that is already catered for.
The third evidence session has been shorter because a lot of ground was covered in the first session in particular, and in the second session. I thank the witnesses for their written evidence and their oral evidence, which has been extremely helpful. We look forward to seeing the recommendations of the working party next week.
Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence.
I have asked the clerks to put on the agenda for next week a discussion of the evidence that we have heard today. I will suspend the meeting for six minutes so that we can have a comfort break until 16:00.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—