Chamber and committees

At the Public Audit Committee meeting on 11 January, Karen Watt, who is the chief executive of the Scottish Funding Council, spoke of

“a range of other issues”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 11 January 2024; c 34.]

that were delaying the consideration of its recommendations. Does the minister know what those other issues are? Can he further expand on the timescale for delivering that?

I am not interested in what is going on in England and Wales—[Interruption.]

To ask the Scottish Government when a decision will be made regarding the Scottish Funding Council’s recommendation to end the regional colleges arrangement in Lanarkshire and Glasgow. (S6O-03045)

I am listening very carefully to what the minister is saying. She appears to be saying that she wants to wait for the regulator to be set up in England and then wait to see how it operates before she does anything. How long does she expect that to take? To me, it looks as though that could take several years. Is she not at least prepared to start discussions now?

I, too, congratulate Ben Macpherson on bringing the debate to the chamber, and thank him for doing so. It is long overdue, and the very fact that we are having this debate has sparked a debate. Unfortunately, I am already seeing entrenched positions between what I would describe as the fan-led group who produced the excellent “Rebuilding Scottish Football” paper and the Scottish football establishment.

What is football? It has to be more than just a business. It is more than just paying to go to a game, cheering on your team and going home. It has to be more than that. Football is for all of us, and it is about our heritage. That heritage can be passed down through families, from father or mother to son or daughter. Generations of families support the same team, wherever they live, and that is a good thing. Football matters to people in this country. It is not just a business; it is really important. I hope that this can be the start of a discussion that can lead to some change.

There has been talk of what is happening in England. Plans for an independent regulator were outlined in the King’s speech last November. That followed a fan-led review, chaired by Tracey Crouch, which said that a regulator was necessary. Of course, we have had a similar review, the results of which are set out in the “Rebuilding Scottish Football” paper. I can sense the frustration throughout it. It says—and is right to say—that football is full of vested interests, and it agrees that there should be an independent regulator.

I want to go through some of what is happening in England. Although I do not agree with all of it, it is worth knowing the position there. The independent regulator will have three specific primary duties: club sustainability, which is the financial sustainability of individual clubs; systemic stability, which is the overall stability of the football pyramid; and cultural heritage, which is protecting the heritage of football clubs that matter most to fans.

The regulator in England will operate a licensing system in which clubs will need a licence to operate as a professional football club. It will establish a compulsory football club corporate governance code that will be applied proportionately with regard to a club’s size, the league that it is in and the complexity of the club’s business model. The regulator will establish new tests for prospective owners and directors of football clubs that aim to avoid any more unsuitable custodians causing or contributing to problems at clubs and risking harm to fans. It will implement a minimum standard of fan engagement and ensure that clubs have in place a framework to regularly meet a representative group of fans to discuss key matters at the club and other issues of interest to supporters. I must be honest: I am a little wary of that, because it depends on who is classed as a representative group. I have seen groups of fans who claim to speak for every supporter of a club when they demonstrably do not. The regulator will also add to and reinforce existing protections around club heritage. There is more that the regulator will do.

I thank the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Professional Football League, the Scottish Women’s Football League and the Scottish Professional Football League Trust for their joint letter in which they—rightly—pointed out all the positives in the game in Scotland. However, they rejected the need for a regulator. They are being defensive, but they do not need to be.

As I said at the start, this debate has at least sparked a debate, which is a good thing. The football establishment, which Douglas Ross is a member of—I am glad that he did not fall into line behind that letter—needs to come to the table as well. I would like the minister, in her closing speech, to at least agree that such a discussion is necessary. It should be led by the Government, and we can do things in this Parliament, because the beautiful game belongs to us all.

Will the minister take an intervention?

There has been no decision. Therefore, it is a possibility.

So, that is a no.

No, convener. The committee has been very thorough. I would have pressed the cabinet secretary on woodlands, but that has been covered.

It is a possibility. Okay.

I come now to the matter of the small vessel replacement programme, which the convener asked about. The funding for that has been delayed. Is the reason for that delay to allow the Ferguson’s yard to compete for the work?