London Olympic Bid
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-811, in the name of Alex Neil, on the London Olympic bid for 2012. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the decision by Her Majesty's Government to provide an unlimited funding guarantee for the London bid to host the Olympic Games in 2012 and, whilst happy to support the bid's success, believes that London should share financial responsibility for the guarantee in line with the original intention of Her Majesty's Government, outlined in the response to A London Olympic Bid for 2012 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
My speech will not be about defending some narrow nationalist point or promoting a kailyard mentality towards the global Olympic movement. Indeed, I wish London all the best in its bid to get the Olympics in 2012. London is a wonderful international city and it is well placed to host the Olympics in 2012. I also recognise the potential benefits to Scotland. Some of the pre-games training might be brought to Scotland and some games might be hosted here, for example football at Hampden or sailing at Largs—which is in the constituency of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson. There is also a potential tourism spin-off, because people who come to London to see the Olympics might include a visit to Scotland.
However, like the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, I have a number of concerns about the costs, funding and benefits of the London bid. In particular, I am concerned about the bill that is currently going through the House of Commons to set up a special lottery for the London Olympics. That legislation will have an effect on the revenues that the existing lottery fund generates and on the money that it spends on good causes and sports in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
My concerns are shared by the House of Commons select committee, but similar concerns have been expressed elsewhere in the UK, including in Wales and in the north-east, the north-west and the south-west of England. If for no other reason, those concerns must be addressed because, as part of the approval process for the bid, the International Olympic Committee will carry out a UK-wide opinion poll next year to establish the level of commitment to London hosting the games in 2012. If that opinion poll produces a negative result, because the Scots, the Welsh and people in the regions of England are unhappy with the proposed arrangements, it could scupper London's bid. Therefore, it is in the interests of the bid committee to listen to our concerns.
The UK Government estimates that a total of £2,375 million in public subsidy will be needed for the bid. Of that nearly £2.4 billion, £1.5 billion will come from the national lottery. For the purposes of tonight's debate, we will assume that the estimate is right and is not like the estimates for the Dome or the Scottish Parliament building, which ended up costing twice, three times or four times the original estimate.
Half of the lottery money—some £750 million—will come from the new Olympic lottery game. The other £750 million will come from "Existing sports distributors" and
"Possible changes to the existing shares between ‘good causes' after 2009-2012".
On those figures, Scotland could lose well more than £30 million of sports money to pay for the London Olympics. That is equivalent to the total amount of money that the First Minister committed yesterday for football in Scotland between now and 2015. Scotland could lose a further £40 million or more from lottery funds that are currently devoted to good causes. Thus, Scotland could be robbed of a total of £70 million of much-needed money for sports and good causes to subsidise the London Olympics. Personally, I find that unacceptable.
Even if we add up all the benefits that Scotland is likely to get from the London Olympics, under the present arrangements, the benefits are unlikely to compensate for the scale of the loss that sport and other good causes in Scotland would suffer. As I said, similar concerns have been expressed elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
To make matters worse, Camelot estimates that 59 per cent of existing lottery income will be cannibalised by other lottery games. There will be a double whammy: lottery revenues for good causes will drop by up to 60 per cent and a huge chunk of existing spending will be siphoned off from existing lottery funds.
I am not sure where the member's argument is going. Does he believe that Scotland should make any contribution to a successful London bid for the Olympic games? If so, at what level does he believe that Scotland's contribution should be set?
My position is clear: our contribution should be in line with the benefits that Scotland can get and we should not end up supporting the London Olympic bid at any price to Scotland, Wales or the north-east, north-west or south-west of England. I agree with the most recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which said:
"What is clear is that funding the 2012 Games, should the bid be successful, constitutes a potentially huge drain on the total funds available for the existing good causes, including grassroots sport (especially outside London where expected legacies will presumably be less). This is at a time when total Lottery ticket sales are only just poised to come out of a 5 year decline".
The committee also mentioned the importance of promoting sport and a generally more active lifestyle, especially among children, which will be relegated among our public health priorities as a result of the loss of lottery money.
To add insult to injury, the UK Government made all its commitments and statements without any prior consultation. There was no consultation with the sports bodies in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and there was no prior consultation with the recipients of existing lottery funds for good causes. I doubt whether there was any prior consultation with the Scottish Executive, but if there was, what was its response? There was certainly no prior consultation with the Parliament.
The London bid can be supported in principle, but not at the heavy price that our sport and good causes, Welsh sport and good causes, Northern Irish sport and good causes and sport and good causes in parts of England outside London will pay. They should not pay that price. As the House of Commons select committee pointed out, the creation of a separate lottery dedicated to the London Olympics would be
"unnecessary, wasteful of resources and against the thrust of the Government's own strategy for sport."
I reach the same conclusion as the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is dominated by Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrats MPs and on which there are no Scottish National Party MPs. That committee says:
"It is clearly desirable in principle that London should host an Olympic and Paralympic Games. But it should not do so at any price."
Like the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives fully support London's Olympic bid. As the SNP has outlined, the Government's estimate is that £55 million per year—about 4 per cent of annual income for good causes from the lottery—will go to the Olympic bid. The SNP is right to say that money will be diverted from good causes, but that is the case for the whole UK, not only Scotland.
The chairman of sportscotland, Alastair Dempster, welcomed the London 2012 Olympic bid, but said:
"While we wait to hear further details regarding the funding arrangements for the implementation of a successful Olympic bid, we are concerned that the funding required will be diverted from existing Lottery streams."
I appreciate those concerns, because it is estimated that between £40 million and £60 million will come off Scottish sports funding to help to make up the Olympic £3.6 billion. Some would say that that is a fraction of the cost, but it is a substantial amount for Scottish sport over the next seven years.
Another big worry is the fact that lottery income appears to be dropping consistently from year to year. I fully understand the concerns that funding might be taken away from current Scottish sport funding, but I ask where else the money will come from. I know that the SNP wants London to fund the games, because it believes that London will get the benefits from them—it takes the view that if a place benefits, it has to pay for the thing. That is fair enough, but the fact is that Scotland will benefit from the games if the bid is successful.
For example, it is guaranteed that Hampden will be used for the football tournament. On that point, it is sad that there are unlikely to be any British footballers involved. I think that my previous suggestion that we should reinstate the home internationals, and that whoever wins the home international championship should represent Britain in the Olympics, is a very good idea. I wonder whether the minister might say something about that.
Athletes from all over the world will come to Scotland and the rest of the UK to train and prepare for the games. That is a great advertisement for our country. Surely that means that we should contribute financially as much as possible to the games.
I am not against the Olympics; what I want is for the benefits and costs to relate to each other. Is Jamie McGrigor prepared to tell the sports clubs of the Highlands and Islands that benefit from lottery money that they are not to get any funding for the next 10 years because of the London Olympics being subsidised?
No—I do not think that such clubs will not get any funding. There might be a shortfall somewhere, but that should be made up by the benefit from the Olympics to Scotland and to sport as a whole, especially when we think about young people's dreams about sport. If we really wanted to do something for sport, we would have at least two hours' physical education in schools. Then, I hope, we would have more Olympic athletes. That would be a start; it is not all about money.
I think that Scotland will benefit more from the London Olympics than the majority of English counties, and what about all the charities and sports activities that will benefit? The Olympic games are different—they are special, and they bring a terrific buzz. They inspire children to get out and get involved in sport. Children will get a passion for a whole range of sports if the games come to the United Kingdom. I believe that the Olympics are an occasion that brings the UK together—Alex Neil may or may not agree with that. I believe that we would be getting an extremely good deal if the games were brought to London. However, I also agree that funding would be diverted, and that concern has been echoed by sportscotland, with which I have been in contact today.
I look forward to hearing from the minister about what has come out of discussions on the issue with Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I re-emphasise that money is not everything where sport is concerned. We need enthusiasm and a little more physical exercise in schools. I make that plea to the minister.
It is absolutely true that money is not everything where sport is concerned—but it sure says a lot for people who are trying to keep together a wee cycling team that operates out of a shed somewhere in the back of beyond in central Scotland; for someone who is trying to pay to take young swimmers to interclub galas; or even for the people from Livingston who happen to be the British ice dance champions and who are now making it into the top 10 in world ice dancing. They find that money helps a great deal, because it allows them to seek out the best possible coaching and residential courses.
Money is important. We should think about that if money is going to be taken from sports in Scotland that, in line with Executive policy, are trying to increase their rates of participation and to improve performance. The bedrock is to get more people participating and money is required to do that. Young athletes, who are often from deprived areas, frequently need help to buy the kit. Do members know how much it costs to buy ice hockey kit—for those who happen to live around Ayr or Kirkcaldy? It is a lot of money. The clubs need money if young people are going to take part. By denying them it, we are selling Scottish sportspeople short.
We also need coaches. It is not enough just to pay for the kit so that the kid can go and play ice hockey or whatever other sport; they have to be properly coached. Coaches, who are not usually from the most salubrious backgrounds, have to be sent to training camps.
It all takes money, which is why the community sports clubs need it. I understand that sportscotland is concerned because it expects funding of only £18 million next year compared with £32.5 million in 1998, which was before the necessity was recognised of getting people to have an active lifestyle and of getting more people teaching physical education in schools—Jamie McGrigor is quite right about that. However, believe it or not, even that has an impact on the amount of money that sportscotland has at its disposal. We have to utilise properly a higher number of PE teachers, who can be used in the community to coach and stimulate interest in sports, because that is much more likely to get people participating in sport than are television pictures of an international-class athlete. It does not matter whether those pictures are being beamed from London or Rio de Janeiro. If the kids are going to be motivated by world-class athletes, it will not matter what the colour of their skin is or where they are performing their athletic skills. Hosting the Olympic games would have to be a huge motivating factor to overcome the downside of the loss of money to sport.
I completely take the point that the member is making, because in the region that I represent, shinty is a big game that does not receive nearly enough funding, as I have said on many occasions, but it still manages to go on providing a means of physical exercise. We do not see shinty at the Olympics.
That was my point. The reason why we do not see shinty at the Olympics is that it cannot expand from its base, which has a lot to do with financial constraints.
What would the London Olympics do for Scottish sport? If the Olympics were taking place in London, there could be a bigger British team and we might get more Scots into it, who would just get under the wire of the qualifying time for the Olympic events and who would be losers. I doubt that that would be a great big motivator for more kids to take part in Scottish sport. I speak as someone who dreamed of going to the Olympics and trailed over to Coatbridge baths every Sunday morning to dive off the 5m board. I never got to the Olympics and I got a burst eardrum, but that is another story.
I do not wish to sound dog-in-the-mangerish about London having the Olympics, but I honestly think that from our point of view—we must evaluate the matter from our point of view, as did the House of Commons select committee—the case has not been proved that there will be such a huge benefit to what we are trying to do on participative sport and on raising standards in this country. We should not upset that programme in order to bid for the 2012 Olympics. I will be long gone, but if we considered a longer timescale, we might manage to combine the two objectives. By going for the London Olympics in 2012 and depriving sport of its essential funding to do so, we are doing a great disservice to all the young athletes who might get to the Olympics in London or elsewhere in 2016 or 2020.
I thank my colleague Frank McAveety for giving me the opportunity to contribute, as I am not the minister responsible for the subject. I was moved to speak by the speeches of Alex Neil and Margo MacDonald, who are two members with whom I would usually have quite a lot in common; however, in this instance they are in danger of failing to see the wood for the trees.
I accept fully the point that was made about the importance of kit, infrastructure and facilities in driving excellence in sport, but what inspires the youngster to get out of their bed at 5 o'clock in the morning to go to their local swimming baths to participate in the training that allows them to achieve sporting excellence? What inspires the young cyclist to go to the central Scotland cycling club at all hours of the day and night to train to achieve sporting excellence? What inspires the young ice skater in Ayr to use their spare time in order to achieve sporting excellence?
Does the minister want the answer? I suspect that the ice dancers were inspired by hearing "Bolero" and seeing the excellence of two English skaters at the Olympics a long time ago. Those skaters did not have to be in London or next door to motivate and raise standards. That is my point.
I suspect that that is also my point. Youngsters are inspired to achieve sporting excellence and to seek the holy grail of success on the sporting field by role models—people such as world champion ice skaters or Graeme Obree, the famous Scottish cyclist, who competed at the highest level on the Olympic stage.
Will the minister give way?
I am responding to a point in this interesting debate. Dare I say it—in any field, sporting excellence inspires youngsters and gives them aspirations to match their prowess to that of other contemporary athletes on the world stage. What better inspiration is there than having the world's greatest sporting festival on their doorstep? I suggest respectfully to our nationalist friends that the only place on these islands that can secure the Olympics is London.
Notwithstanding the considerable economic benefit that could accrue to my constituency, to my ministerial colleague's constituency and to the constituencies of everybody who has the opportunity to participate in that world sporting gala, we would fail the people of Scotland if we did not fling our whole-hearted support behind hosting that world festival on our doorstep, to inspire the young athletes of whom I speak. The nationalists are in danger of seeing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I thank members for their speeches and I thank Alex Neil for lodging the motion. I also pay tribute to my colleague Allan Wilson for being a significant voice of reason in the debate.
I will deal with key issues that have been identified and I will try my best to address all the points that members have made. Like Alex Neil, the Scottish Executive welcomes the UK's bid for the Olympics. Alex Neil described seven qualifying phases—which would probably be much longer than qualifying phases for an Olympic event—following which he would support the London application.
Members should know two or three fundamental facts. As Allan Wilson said, the Executive is keen to maximise the benefits for the whole UK of a successful bid. It is obvious that London would be a significant beneficiary. According to the logic that Alex Neil deployed, if Scotland were to bid for the Commonwealth games, we would have to exclude our two largest cities, because other parts of Scotland might be a wee bit upset if Edinburgh or Glasgow were considered as a potential bidder. The same logic applies to consideration of whether London's bid is suitable for the rest of the UK.
I just drew a parallel, because sometimes the narrow confines of Scotland can influence perspectives.
The Exchequer would be the ultimate guarantor of funding for the games—that is a prerequisite of International Olympic Committee consideration. However, the motion is incorrect, as London intends to share financial responsibility for that guarantee, in line with the original intention of Her Majesty's Government as outlined in the response by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to "A London Olympic Bid for 2012". That document referred to
"a sharing arrangement to be agreed as appropriate with the Mayor of London and … seeking additional National Lottery funding in amounts to be agreed at the time."
The UK Government does not expect to need additional public finance. The proposed funding package comprises £2.375 billion, of which £1.5 billion will be from lottery funds and £875 million will be from London council tax payers and the London Development Agency. Therefore, the burden would be spread in respect of the broad contribution. I say to Alex Neil that there has not been a specific analysis from a utilitarian view, but it is not necessarily logical to say that we will put in only what we think we will automatically get back because—as I think Jamie McGrigor rightly said—the bid is as much about aspiration and inspiration as it is about consequential economic benefits.
I assure Alex Neil that the work that I am doing—as the minister who has responsibility for sport—with sportscotland and many other sporting bodies aims to maximise where possible the range of opportunities that the bid will provide. One opportunity that is currently evolving is the training-camp opportunity. Evidence from Australia relating to recent developments suggests that training camps have made substantial contributions and have provided significant economic benefits to the areas where they are. We will certainly endeavour to work in that direction.
I will give way to Alex Neil in a moment.
There is a second key objective. I want to clarify and emphasise that there is no intention that sportscotland's share of the lottery sports fund contribution will be top-sliced to pay for facilities in London. That suggestion is absolutely wrong. The £340 million from the lottery sports fund was always intended to maximise opportunities for sport and to work to achieve sport 21's ambitions in Scotland, as part of the wider UK ambition to improve medal success in 2012. We want a sporting legacy that is not only for currently successful individuals, but which will inspire the many young Scottish sports persons whom we want to participate in 2012.
My quotes were taken directly from a House of Commons select committee on which Labour members form the majority.
Has the minister undertaken any evaluation of the maximum potential benefits? Can he put a figure on them? Are the potential benefits to Scotland anywhere near £70 million?
I am happy that the Official Report will say that Alex Neil has listened carefully to Labour members in the House of Commons and that he is happy to accept their veracity. I hope that he will take that position consistently in many other debates.
I have two things to say. First, I have already said that £30 million of the £70 million that Alex Neil mentioned will be spent in Scotland and in the sportscotland budget to facilitate the development of our aspirational athletes for 2012. That money will be contained within Scotland.
On the broader issue of good causes, I am willing to concede that there will be a potential impact on good causes throughout the United Kingdom over the next few years, which would not be specific to Scotland. One of the key aims that Camelot—the current lottery distributor—and many other agencies that are involved will need to work towards is minimisation of the impact on good causes.
However, I want to clarify that the issue is about notional income over the next eight to 10 years—it is not about money that is already in the system that will be lost to existing lottery commitments. The issue relates to what we want to do with future income generation. Choices are being made in respect of how we see the opportunities that can exist with the development of the Olympics in London in 2012.
Obviously, there are substantial potential economic benefits for the many companies that could compete to provide services for the 2012 Olympics. There is already evidence that a number of Scottish companies are in there early enough to try to identify ways in which they might benefit. However, the issue is not about a strict accounting mechanism that says that we should automatically have everything from the Olympics that would necessarily have gone to good causes. We need to try to match things up with many other aspirations.
I will deal with one or two other issues that have been raised. Jamie McGrigor rightly raised an issue that he has been consistent about, although he is consistently wrong about it. He asked whether we should try to unite the home nations for a Great Britain football team. Members know well that the autonomy of football bodies such as the Scottish Football Federation, the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales is well protected. I certainly would not want to encourage a development that could work against many of our European and world cup qualifying opportunities and aspirations. I want to have the opportunity at least to believe that we can achieve much in the qualifying phases and I hope that, with yesterday's welcome injection of money from the Executive and other sources, we will be able to participate in finals as fans, and that perhaps even the sons or grandsons of people in the chamber can represent their country at that level. I would therefore not want to encourage such a development. What was said was interesting, but I do not necessarily share such views.
One of the key challenges for us over the coming period is to work with the lottery money distributor to maximise the ways in which Scotland can be protected from some of the impact on good causes. I want to work with the National Lottery to find ways in which we can deal with that. That will require substantial and effective discussion.
On the longer-term strategy, which Margo MacDonald mentioned, we have already set criteria for the talented athletes that we have in Scotland. We think that we can give more substantial support to athletes—for example, some of our skaters and others—who have performed at a level that previous development suggested they might not reach. Sportscotland has a review process that ensures that any individual athlete can re-apply for funding if he or she feels that the quality of their performance has started to improve—sportscotland would welcome that. Over the past few months, the performance of one or two athletes has been above what had been projected, and sportscotland is presently in discussion with those athletes about that.
The UK can benefit from London's bid for the 2012 Olympics. We are competing with many other major nations, and global television can inspire in much the same way that the colour television pictures of the 1970 world cup clearly inspired many individuals.
I conclude by returning to an observation that I made yesterday when I announced the action plan for youth football. Everyone remembers the five or six stars of the Brazil side at the 1970 world cup finals. One of the lesser-known players was the centre back, Piazza. When asked how he felt about performing for Brazil in the 1970 world cup final, he said that he was from a very poor region of Brazil—the Mineiros region—and that he remembered a story from his childhood about a hummingbird that went to the river to get water to put out a raging forest fire. A cynical, wiser old bird—I hate to use that as an analogy for Alex Neil—said, "Why are you wasting your time? You will not put out that fire." The hummingbird replied, "I am trying to play my part."
If we can play our part within the wider United Kingdom to ensure that, at the 2012 Olympics, Scottish athletes can perform at the top level and can talk about that as proudly as Piazza talked about his contribution, unremarked as he was in 1970, I think that that will make a difference. I hope that Alex Neil, too, can recognise that.
Meeting closed at 18:22.