House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee Community Sport

Oral and Written Evidence Tuesday 5 April 2005

Prof Margaret Talbot OBE, Mr Charles Stringer, Ms Linda Neal, Mr Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock

Mr Francis Baron, Mr Brian Barwick, Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther

Rt Hon Estelle Morris, MP, Mr Paul Heron, Lord Carter of Coles and Mr Roger Draper

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 5 April 2005

HC 507-i Published on 19 May 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London : The Stationery Office Limited £18.50

Witnesses

Tuesday 5 April 2005

Professor Margaret Talbot OBE, Chief Executive, Central Council for Physical Recreation; Mr Charles Stringer, Chairman, Hertfordshire Junior Cricket Committee and President Nazeing Common Cricket Club; Ms Linda Neal, Honorary Secretary, Sheppey Rugby Football Club; Mr Dan Bloxham, Head Coach, All England Lawn Tennis Club; and Mr Peter Baveystock, Chairman,Hownslow Sports Forum Ev 14

Mr Francis Baron, Chief Executive, Rugby Football Union; Mr Brian Barwick, Chief Executive, The Football Association; Mr David Collier, Chief Executive, The England and Wales Cricket Board; and Mr John Crowther, Chief Executive, The Lawn Tennis Association Ev 81

Rt Hon Estelle Morris, Minister of State, Mr Paul Heron, Head of Sports, DCMS, Lord Carter of Coles, Chairman, and Mr Roger Draper, Chief Executive, Sport England Ev 95

List of written evidence

1 Central Council for Physical Recreation Ev 1, 21 2 Local Government Association Ev 11 3 Rugby Football Union Ev 22 4 Football Association Ev 66 5 England and Wales Cricket Board Ev 72 6 Lawn Tennis Association Ev 76 7 DCMS Ev 87 8 Sport England Ev 91 9 Amateur Swimming Association Ev 101 10 Association of British Athletic Clubs Ev 104 11 Badminton England Ev 107 12 Big Lottery Fund Ev 109 13 Business in Sport and Leisure Limited Ev 121 14 Corporation of London Ev 124 15 Dr Adam Brown Ev 125 16 European Sponsorship Association Ev 126 17 Football Foundation Ev 129 18 Institute of Sport and Recreation Management Ev 129 19 Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme Ev 131 20 Manchester City Council Ev 137 21 Pertemps People Development Group Ev 139 22 Premier League Ev 142 23 Richard Baldwin Ev 145 24 Sheffield City Council Ev 147 25 Sports Match Ev 152 26 Swim 2000 UK Ev 156 27 The Princes Trust Ev 157 28 UK Sport Ev 159 3049211PAG Page Type [SO] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Culture,Media and Sport Committee

on Tuesday 5 April 2005

Members present:

Sir Gerald Kaufman, in the Chair

Chris Bryant Alan Keen Mr Frank Doran Rosemary McKenna Michael Fabricant Derek Wyatt Mr Nick Hawkins

In the absence of the Chairman, Alan Keen was called to the Chair

Memorandum submitted by the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR)

1. CCPR This inquiry into Community Sport, with emphasis on the development of grassroots sport and participation by all members of the community, is warmly welcomed by the CCPR, which is the umbrella body for 270 UK/GB and English national voluntary organisations for sport and recreation, including the national governing bodies1. CCPR’s member organisations collectively account for approximately 13 million sports club memberships (around 8 million active participants) and around 5 million volunteers. CCPR member interests encompass all competitive and recreational sports and activities, from highly competitive, institutionalised sport, to movement, dance, mind games and outdoor and adventurous activities; and include almost all of the voluntary organisations promoting their primary purposes through sport (eg youth sector, local authorities, physical education and education, military and uniformed services sports divisions and professional organisations). The CCPR membership also plays a huge role in supporting the policy outcomes of many central government departments. For a summary of these contributions by CCPR member organisations, see the CCPR “Red Book for Sport and Recreation”, published last month, immediately before the budget (available from: www.ccpr.org.uk/dyncat.cfm?catid%16737). CCPR has a strategic relationship with Business in Sport and Leisure, the umbrella body for commercial and private organisations and companies delivering sport and recreation.

2. Community sport “Community Sport” is taken to mean that provision which takes place outside and beyond the formal school system, at local level within people’s own communities. There is an obvious synergy between the focus of this Inquiry and the interests and concerns of the CCPR membership.

3. The Role of CCPR: Protecting and Promoting the Interests of Voluntary Sector Sport and Recreation As well as providing a forum for sharing experience and good practice and acting as a consultee to government and its agencies, the role of the CCPR is to protect and promote the interests of voluntary sector sport and recreation, including the national governing bodies. This is achieved both through providing information and development services which help membership organisations build the capacity to respond to changing legal, regulatory and strategic requirements; and through its policy work, whose intention is to influence and steer policy and strategy so that the interests of voluntary sector sport and recreation are protected and promoted. CCPR’s preferred approach is always to be in a position to analyse policy or emerging legislation at an early enough stage to be able to influence its development and drafting. This, however, depends either on the eVectiveness of the consultation process; or on CCPR’s ability to recognise, early enough, the implications of proposed changes in legislation, regulation or policy. Since this requires

1 For more information, see www.ccpr.org.uk or telephone CCPR on 020 7854 8500, or E mail adminwccpr.org.uk 3049212001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

knowledge of the activities of around 17 central government departments or their agencies, this is a demanding task! The policy work of the CCPR is valued highly by its members and is best represented by the monthly Policy Update which is distributed to members and available more generally on the CCPR website.

3(i) Recent examples of CCPR’s role in promoting the interests of its members: (a) Drawing attention to the contributions and needs of the NGBs and voluntary sector sport and recreation in national strategy. “Game Plan”, the Government’s national strategy for sport, acknowledged that Government itself does not (and cannot) deliver sport and recreation, but depends on four major delivery sectors to do so—the voluntary, education, commercial and local government sectors. The strategy was, however, silent on the nature and scope of provision by each of these four sectors; and there was (and remains, with the exception of physical education and school sport) no strategic approach to building the capacity of these sectors to continue and extend the opportunities they provide to people and their communities. CCPR regards this as the most serious gap in thinking at national level, and in November 2004 it issued a Challenge to the Next Government, which suggested measures which could be taken to secure concrete outcomes which would strengthen the capacity of each of these sectors and enable them to do more. The CCPR Challenge focuses on all four of the delivery sectors for sport and recreation (see later section on national strategy), but specifically outlines measures which would support the existing and potential contributions of the national governing bodies and the voluntary sector: — Recognise and celebrate the core provision and added value which national governing bodies and their clubs bring to the system; — Double the current Exchequer funding for sport and recreation; — Invest in voluntary organisations and clubs and their volunteers, and provide learning credits; — Protect volunteers and their organisations from trivial and unnecessary regulation and legislation. (b) Evidence of the contribution of voluntary sector sport and recreation to the active citizenship and volunteering agenda. Through its relationships with the wider voluntary sector and the Active Communities Directorate in the Home OYce, CCPR was aware that the massive contribution of national governing bodies (NGBs), national sports organisations (NSOs), their clubs and volunteers to this agenda was virtually invisible—both in sport policy and in voluntary sector policy. The CCPR was aware from the existing research that 26% of all volunteering takes place in sport and recreation—the biggest single arena for volunteering to take place—most of it, under the aegis of the national governing bodies and their clubs. An independent research study was therefore commissioned by CCPR to record and show evidence of this contribution2. The study has been invaluable in raising awareness and the profile of sport and recreation in Home OYce thinking, and helping NGBs to recognise their own (often taken- for-granted) contribution to this important area of government policy. (c) Social capital: Following from the above study, and from a national seminar series funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the CCPR decided to extend data collection on the promotion of the value of NGBs and NSOs by commissioning the Carnegie Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University to construct a framework for evaluating NGBs’ and NSOs’ social capital. This was done, because there seemed to be little recognition across sports strategy of the crucial importance of the sector in sports provision. Voluntary sector sport and recreation is unique, in being the only sector whose primary purpose and responsibility is the delivery and development of sport and recreation. It therefore provides a continuity of purpose, strength of belief and range of local community involvement which simply cannot be matched by the other delivery sectors. Voluntary sector sport and recreation accounts for 26% of all volunteering; and voluntary sports clubs, 50% of which have existed for more than 30 years and 30% for more than 50 years, represent a massive contribution to continuity of social capital. (d) Community Amateur Sports Clubs CCPR actively campaigned for many years for “parity with charity”, finally achieving Treasury agreement to tax relief for sports clubs in 2002, followed in 2003 by mandatory 80% tax relief. This achievement was a good example of CCPR’s status as an independent organisation voicing for sport and recreation, a proven need, with cross party support in both Houses; while within government, representations were being made across departments to achieve this. Having achieved these measures, CCPR has worked hard with DCMS, the Inland Revenue and private sector partners Deloitte and Bates Wells and Braithwaite to promote the benefits of the scheme to sports clubs, through the NGBs and regional federations. There have been two series of regional seminars and CCPR now oVers a

2 GeoV Nichols (2003) Active Citizenship: the role of voluntary sector sport and recreation London, CCPR; available from the publications section on www.ccpr.org.uk 3049212001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 3

help line and advisory service to clubs. In this case, CCPR’s role changed radically from lobbying and campaigning, to active support and implementation. Almost 2,500 clubs have now registered, and Richard Baldwin of Deloitte estimated that by summer 2004 approximately £5 million had been kept in the clubs system. CASCs is an elegant and attractive measure, since it keeps money in the system rather than requiring bureaucratic processes to bid for money; it prevents leakage (a real Treasury concern) and it actively frees up volunteers from fund-raising to deliver to their communities. CCPR would like to see other fiscal measures using CASCs registration as a means of supporting and enabling sports clubs—the backbone of delivery in this country—to continue and extend their services to their communities. (e) Education and Training OYcers’ Forum and NGBs modernisation project: CCPR has been operating a Forum for NGB Education and Training OYcers for more than 2 years, so that they could better respond to changing requirements for accreditation of qualifications and also secure mainstream education funding to support delivery of these qualifications, especially for volunteers. NGB qualifications are the basis for safe and high quality delivery of activities to participants and are widely regarded as the benchmarks for employment and use of facilities. CCPR has secured a modernisation grant from UK Sport to support a project to build capacity across 10 NGBs to gain accreditation for their qualifications, and thus qualify for mainstream education funding. (f) NGB Funding Working Group: This member Working Group was established to provide a picture of NGB income and expenditure, and an analysis of issues of NGB funding which could be addressed by CCPR with major funders, notably the sports councils. The Carnegie Institute will be reporting soon on its commissioned work on NGB financial trends and patterns. The work of the Group has revealed several issues which CCPR has already attempted to address, but on which considerably more work needs to be done. (Delays have been partly at least because of diYculties in securing timely and transparent information from one funding organisation.): — Dependence on Lottery income to provide funding for world class programmes. Since increasing international success is one of the Government’s two strategic objectives for sport, and it has become increasingly diYcult for the sports councils to fund the entire needs of world class programmes from Lottery income, resulting in (eg) termination of the NGB modernisation budget, the Group recommends that world-class funding should be funded from Exchequer funds. This is the major reason for CCPR’s Challenge to the Next Government3 including a doubling of Exchequer funds. — The principles of the Compact between the Government and the voluntary sector, signed by the Prime Minister in 1998, and the Treasury Guidelines to Funders of Voluntary Organisation (2003) have barely been recognised in the funding regimes of the sports councils for NGBs and other partner organisations. These principles include equality in partnerships and reciprocity; minimum consultation periods; minimum periods for notification of changes in or cessation of funding; transparency of criteria and process; prompt payment to agreed schedules; full cost recovery; and shared risk between funder and funded organisation. — Tendency to retain larger reserves than desirable by funded organisations, stemming from lack of confidence in funders’ track record in making payments on time; short-term funding agreements; over-dependence on project funding; and/or last-minute decisions not to fund, following months of expectation that funding would be provided. The lack of exit strategies for cessation of ring-fenced funding, too, has been cited as a factor. — Contractual and procurement issues. (g) Raising the profile of the need for curriculum time for physical education and new models of teacher training: CCPR has welcomed and applauded the progress which has been made during the last 8 years or so, to improve the position of physical education and school sport. Building on the commitments in its Charter for Physical Education and School Sport, CCPR included in its Challenge to the Next Government, requirement for a minimum 2 hours’ high quality physical education per week for all children aged 5-16; daily physical activity in primary schools; and a minimum 30 hours’ initial training in physical education for all primary school teachers. The recent commitment to require two hours within the curriculum by 2010 is therefore very welcome, although CCPR would like to see faster implementation. In January, CCPR held a National Summit on Physical Education with experts from a range of disciplines who agreed a Declaration on Physical Education which was launched in Westminster on 25 January. (h) Evidence of the economic value of sport and recreation in the countryside: The economic eVects of the Foot and Mouth crisis starkly demonstrated what had been well known for decades—that rural economies were dependent, not only on farming and agriculture, but

3 See publications section of www.ccpr.org.uk 3049212002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 4 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

increasingly upon recreational visits and activities undertaken in the countryside and on water. CCPR, with support from Sport England, has commissioned an independent research study from SheYeld Hallam University to evaluate the existing data on the economic value of sport and recreation to the rural economy. This data will be an important tool in influencing DeFRA decisions and policies, and in the establishment of the new Integrated Agency from the merger of the Countryside Agency and English Heritage. It will be essential that this new agency achieves a healthier balance than has been possible to date, between the needs of conservation, the interests of landowners, biodiversity and the increasingly important needs for access for recreation and enjoyment4. It will also be used next week, in a presentation to a national conference on countryside recreation, sponsored by a range of agencies, including CCPR and Sport England. The Red Book, launched prior to the Budget announcement last month, outlines the contributions of NGBs and NSOs to central government department agendas beyond sport.

3(ii) From promotion to protection: This issue of access, and the work which CCPR has been undertaking through a Working Group on NGB funding and a commissioned analysis by the Carnegie Institute on the patterns of income and expenditure by NGBs and NSOs, represent the links between proactive policy work to promote the interests of NGBs and NSOs, and lobbying and campaigning to protect their interests. The current Charities Bill, which includes sport as a charitable purpose in its own right for the first time, has been an excellent example of pre-emptive and positive policy work. The Bill provides the opportunity for the sports organisations which can benefit from charitable status, to secure mandatory 100% rate relief and other fiscal benefits enjoyed by charities. The team in the Home OYce which developed the new legislation was committed to thorough and appropriate consultation with the voluntary sector, from the preparation and publication of Private Action, Public Benefit in 2002, through to the drafting and redrafting of the Bill in 2004. CCPR had been involved in the drafting of the definition of sport as a charitable purpose in the earlier stages, but during this process, became concerned to protect the status of those clubs which had registered as Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs—see later section) from being required to become charities, which would not have been appropriate or eVective for all such clubs. CCPR therefore worked intensively with its legal advisers on charity law, DCMS, the Charity Commission and the Home OYce during summer 2004, to secure a clause to protect CASCs in the Charities Bill. The personal support from the two respective Ministers, Fiona McTaggart in the Home OYce and Richard Caborn in DCMS, was a further factor in this success. The Home OYce process of involvement of the organisations most likely to be aVected by the legislation was exemplary. This is unfortunately not always the case, partly because of lack of understanding of the potential impact on the voluntary sector; lack of commitment in some government departments to undertake assessments of impact on voluntary sector sport and recreation; and because such implications tend to be hidden by the main drivers of change. In most cases, CCPR’s role is to prevent or limit damage from unintended consequence of legislation, regulation or policy. CCPR recently provided an account of such issues to the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet OYce, which has been exploring impact on sport and recreation in general. However, it is noteworthy that until CCPR’s approach to the Unit, there had been no awareness of or intention to consult on, the impact on voluntary sector sport and recreation. The NGBs and NSOs have responded to a raft of increased expectations, either as a result of funding regimes; or through new regulatory or legislative requirements. In this regard, CCPR’s role is to ensure that member organisations and their clubs have as much relevant information as possible, and where appropriate, guidance to help them meet the new requirements. It is to the credit of the NGBs and NSOs and their clubs that generally, they have responded to a very significant number and range of such requirements, usually without any additional funding or support. These include: Disability Discrimination Act; Gender Recognition Act; child protection measures and police checks; equity standards and minimum requirements (which have changed several times during the last decade); the Human Rights Act; the Freedom of Information Act; risk management and insurance; Financial Services Act and new arrangements for collective insurance; and the constantly changing requirements of company and/or charity law.

3(iii) Current examples of CCPR’s role to protect the interests of voluntary sector sport and recreation: It should be borne in mind that several of the issues which are listed below, aVect the whole voluntary sector (the arts, heritage, mental health and community services, other care and support services, horticulture etc) and not only sport and recreation. Often it has been sport and recreation which recognises or articulates them first—sometimes because of the greater awareness of safety and risk; sometimes because of the size of the sport and recreation sector; and sometimes because sport and recreation has in CCPR, an

4 See the examples given in the CCPR Red Book on Sport and Recreation 2005: The Ramblers Association estimates more than 527 walking trips made annually in the English countryside, associated expenditure £6.14 billion; estimated angling expenditure £3 billion pa; British Mountaineering Council estimates 700,000 participants. See ww.ccpr.org.uk/dyncat.cfm?catid%15049 3049212002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 5

infrastructure organisation which is connected with the wider voluntary sector and has the capacity to take a “helicopter view” which allows recognition of issues. In all of the following issues which potentially impact on the whole sector, CCPR has consulted with and secured support from NCVO, ACEVO, CEMVO, Volunteering England and/or NACVS. The list which follows is not exhaustive, since there is a range of EU legislation and regulation which also requires constant scrutiny to avoid unintended consequence. In this regard, CCPR’s participation in the ENGSO (European Non-Governmental Organisations) EU Working Group has been of great benefit, and helped to secure collective action to prevent unnecessary measures which would further burden member organisations and their clubs. (a) Access to the countryside: From the point of view of participation, access to the countryside is a fundamental issue, aVecting more participants than those in competitive sport. The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act is being implemented this year. While it provides unprecedented and very welcome access to the countryside for walkers, its access provision is markedly more restrictive than its counterpart legislation in Scotland, which allows access also for recreational activity using horses, wheeled vehicles and from the air. The fundamental principles of recreational access have been unnecessarily restricted and CCPR will be promoting awareness of the negative eVects of the way this legislation has been framed. It will particularly prevent access to the countryside for people with disabilities and elderly people, activities like mountain biking and horse riding, and water and aerial activities—in fact, all activities which depend on vehicular access. It is also likely to prevent the most responsible use by organised groups using motorised transport and their reconstructive work on green ways, while pre-empting their informal policing of the disorganised, damaging and irresponsible use of the countryside, which is likely to go unchecked. CCPR will therefore be collecting evidence of negative impact on participation, and on access by people with walking diYculties. The recent announcement that all motor sport would be excluded from farmland under the Single Farm Payments’ Scheme seems to be a classic example of uninformed decision or unintended consequence, since it will prevent (eg) well organised, annual or twice-yearly events which provide much-needed income to farmers and to the voluntary organisations concerned, which allow adequate time for land to recover, while not preventing the illegal “hit-and run, cowboy” events which damage the environment and provide no benefits for farmers or the local community. (b) EU Working At Height Regulation: This is a success story for CCPR and the members of the Crisis Committee who worked for more than a year to convince the Health and Safety Executive that the Regulation, whose purpose is to protect workers in the construction industry, window cleaners etc from harm, should not be applied to those sporting and recreational activities whose very purpose is preparation for and management of inherent risk at height—mountaineering and caving; and activities where working at height is necessary for survival (eg care of sails and masts while sailing). The outcome of this careful, highly skilled and technical advocacy is an agreement that these sports will be exceptions, and there will be separate guidance for people taking part in them. The task has been to show that the safety records of these activities are excellent; that the systems of training and preparation used by the national governing bodies concerned are of the highest possible quality; and that in some respects, the requirements which would protect construction workers could actually endanger climbers and cavers, and destroy the integrity of those sports. Minister Jane Kennedy has recently commended the work of the NGBs and the Crisis Committee. But sensible impact analysis and listening to informed advice from the sector would have prevented the need for more than a year’s work by dedicated volunteers who would have much preferred delivering these activities to young people and others! The process was particularly frustrating because it was only in the UK—alone across the EU membership—that this application to sport was being insisted upon by the national agency concerned. (c) National Minimum Wage: CCPR was made aware by one of its member organisations that one of its clubs was facing a substantial bill for back tax from the Inland Revenue, whose Inspectors had inappropriately applied the NMWlegislation to the work of volunteer coaches. Following a straw pol l among members, CCPR found that the issue was beginning to aVect a number of NGBs and their clubs. A scoping paper was produced on the potential unintended consequences of application of NMWto volunteering, with expert advice from Deloitte, and sent to the NMWUnit as preparation for a meeting. Discussion at the meeting confirmed that there are several issues which are now under further discussion, with a view to deciding whether they can be resolved by interpretation guidance, or by change to the primary legislation. The commitment of the Head of the NMWUni t at the Inland Revenue to prevent these unintended consequences—which would impact on the whole voluntary sector, not only on sport and recreation—has been very much welcomed by CCPR. A first meeting has been held with DTI and another is anticipated shortly. It will be desirable that this is resolved, not only to avoid decimation of the work of the sector, but also so that the 2005 Year of the Volunteer can progress! 3049212002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 6 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

(d) Security Industries Act: CCPR’s concern has been to support the eVorts of DCMS and the Football Licensing Authority and several member organisations, notably the Football Association and Rugby Football League, to prevent Home OYce action to ensure training which may be appropriate for (eg) nightclub security staV, is not inappropriately imposed for sporting events which are stewarded by paid and voluntary stewards, who already are well trained, and where there has been no cause for public concern or further regulation. If this is not achieved, then the viability of many of sport’s “blue-riband” events, like Wimbledon, the British Open, the London Marathon, the Horse of the Year Show, Burghley and Badminton, along with almost all such local and regional events, will be undermined and a whole sub- sector of voluntary eVort lost. (e) Local variation in interpretation of VAT obligations by NGBs: CCPR is working with Sport England and UK Sport to ensure that NGBs are not exposed to financial threat, and can maximise their income. This is a complex issue which will require careful collection of information and expert advice. (f) Licensing Act: The negative impact on voluntary sports clubs of the new ways of estimating and collecting licensing fees has been well documented. It was particularly disappointing to see no assessment of impact on voluntary sector clubs, from DCMS, as the lead government department with responsibility for the Act, but also with lead responsibility for sport. Despite cross-party support for challenging the basis for treating voluntary sports clubs as small businesses and estimating fee levels on the basis of rateable value (which includes the very pitches, courts and sports halls which are oVered to the community at clubs’ own expense), the fee levels actually were increased between publication of proposals and the final proposals. CCPR will now collect evidence of negative impact to try to make the case for working on fairer ways in which fees are calculated for clubs. (g) Criminal Records Bureau: NGBs and their clubs have benefited from the government commitment that police checks for volunteers should be free of charge, although the bureaucratic costs for each check nevertheless vary between £7.50 and £20 per check. The CRB’s remit to raise income to cover its costs within two years appears to have driven some of its recommendations, eg enhanced checks for everyone coming into contact with children; finger-printing (hopefully, now abandoned) and reduction in the number of umbrella bodies to be registered, while increasing registration fees and accountability requirements. The incremental eVects on NGBs and their clubs, especially on smaller NGBs, have been and remain significant. CCPR members are not convinced that the expense of this system is proportionate to the risk involved, nor as eVective as more investment in preventive measures and education and training. Post-Soham, however, is almost certainly not the time for rational review of the eVectiveness of this system. (h) Learning and Skills Council priority objectives: CCPR is concerned, as are voluntary organisations like NACVS, about the detrimental eVects of the priority objectives of the Learning and Skills Council on the capacity of the voluntary sector to continue to ensure that its paid and voluntary oYcers are trained and updated. This is an issue which particularly aVects volunteer leaders and coaches, since the NGBs, employers and managersof facilities require regular updating of qualifications, and first aid qualifications, if the principles of risk management are to be met and insurance cover is to be maintained. The LSC, however, not only prioritises 16–19 year-olds and adults without Level 2 qualifications, but also requires that fees for all other groups are raised to help subsidise these priorities—clearly disadvantaging most adult volunteers. For a sector which has always embraced the need for volunteer and paid leaders and coaches to be qualified to the same levels, this is a serious problem. In addition, lack of the planned access to mainstream, recurrent funding for qualifications means that the sustainability of the UK Coaching Certificate and the NGB awards is in doubt. This is the reason why CCPR has challenged the next Government to provide learning vouchers for volunteers in sport and recreation. (i) Risk and insurance: CCPR initially supported Julian Brazier MP’s Private Member’s Bill which sought to protect volunteers in sport and recreation from the pressures of trivial and cynical litigation, and provided evidence of the detrimental eVects on volunteers and their organisations. CCPR’s main aim was to raise awareness of the issue, which has recurrently been cited by members and their insurers during the last 3–4 years. CCPR withdrew its support for the Bill at the 3rd stage, because it had been amended and whittled down to such an extent that NGB and CCPR legal advice was that the proposed legislation could be counter-productive and impose an intended and unnecessary bureaucratic burden. CCPR therefore welcomed the request to help to channel consultation, by the consultant commissioned by the Home OYce to investigate the impact of risk and insurance on voluntary sector sport and recreation. The outcome has been a report to the Home OYce, with a recommendation that the consultation should be extended to the whole range of factors which put 3049212002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 7

pressure on volunteers and their organisations in sport and recreation. This extended consultation would be very much welcomed by CCPR, as recognition by the Home OYce of sport and recreation’s major contribution to its citizenship and volunteering agenda. It is hoped that outlining these issues has helped to illustrate some of the many single and incremental pressures on voluntary sports organisations and clubs, and the strategic role which infrastructure organisations like CCPR can play in pre-empting and preventing adverse eVects. It is of interest that National Heritage recently provided funding specifically for a new infrastructure organisation to promote and protect the interests of voluntary sector heritage organisations.

4. Community Sport This Select Committee Inquiry into Community Sport is very well timed. CCPR believes that there needs to be a better balance in strategy and allocation of resources, between success at international level and increasing participation. An eVective sport system will always require adequate attention to and investment in both; and there will always be tension between them, despite the synergies which exist between them.

4(i) Recent progress: Much has been achieved during the last decade, in establishing new frameworks for developing performance in selected sports and contesting the myth that British performers are merely “good losers”. The achievements of Olympic, Paralympic and international individuals and teams during the last 10 years are testament to the commitment and technical know-how of the athletes, their national governing bodies and their support teams and services—and of course, to the impact of Lottery funding. Where investment has been made, success has been achieved at both community and high performance levels. The NGBs now need ongoing, committed exchequer funding to continue and embed this success, linked to capital investment to support systematic development of facilities infrastructure. This is particularly the case for community coaching, the community club development and community coach schemes. There is also very good news in the construction of a sound infrastructure for good quality physical education and sport in schools. There are clear relationships between Community Sport and both of these areas. Only through school physical education and sport can all children learn the skills, confidence and understanding for lifelong participation, whatever their background and circumstances. And international success depends on, yet also stimulates, participation in the community. However, the focus specifically on Community Sport will help to fill a policy gap which has been yawning for some considerable time.

4(ii) Summary of current issues to be faced in developing measures to promote Community Sport (a) Fundamentals first: The current approaches to developing community sport are somewhat piecemeal; some aspects depend on project funding with specific outcomes; others on use of untried and rather fragile structures. CCPR believes that what is needed is a more strategic, systemic, sector-wide approach, which concentrates on the infrastructure required to provide continuity of purpose and delivery of sport and recreation in the community. This will require a radical review of current capacity and infrastructure, across the four delivery sectors and eVective cross-departmental championship to ensure joined-up thinking and policy. Perhaps most important of all, is the commitment by DCMS and the sports councils to promoting the intrinsic values of sport. CCPR was disappointed to see that the recently-published DCMS Five Year Plan fails to recognise the value of sport and recreation in its own right—in contrast to the arts and heritage, which do not appear to have to justify themselves in terms of health or other government agendas. The lack of acknowledgement of the intrinsic values of joy of movement, strength, speed, deftness and physical achievement; mastery of skill and the environment is disappointing, in a government department with the lead role for the development of sport and recreation. This was articulated in the Quinquennial Review of Sport England, whose report was never published, being overtaken by “Game Plan”. It would be good to see that statement resurrected, along with a reminder of the terms of the Royal Charters of the sports councils, which require them to support the whole range of sport and recreation. This would also help to aYrm the principle that sport and recreation funding should be used specifically for the delivery and development of sport and recreation. Given the constrained Exchequer funding for sport and recreation, it is important that it is not used to meet extrinsic outcomes which should properly be funded by government departments with budgets much larger than that of DCMS. (b) CCPR’s purpose in issuing the Challenge to the Next Government was to achieve a sustainable, robust sport system, which utilises to the full, the best features of that system: — The emerging infrastructure for physical education and sport and the specialist physical education teachers in our schools; 3049212003 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 8 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— The millions of volunteers and their national governing bodies, whose clubs are the backbone of the British sport system, and which is the envy of countries all over the world which lack a strong volunteering culture; — The strong stakeholder culture in voluntary sector sport, which cares and dares to hold government departments and agencies accountable and criticises when they get things wrong; — The excellent national governing body qualifications which are benchmarks for all employers and manager in sport and recreation, which ensure safe, high quality experiences for participants and which are exported to many countries across the world; — The facilities and services provided by local authorities on which so much sport and recreation is dependent; and — The opportunities oVered by the burgeoning commercial sector. The CCPR’s Challenge is that the next Government has the vision and foresight to build on what is already there, so that young people who now are experiencing quality physical education and sport in schools do not enter the community to be faced with the fragmented and fragile system of community sport which exists now. The most urgent and important challenge is to replicate the kind of sustainable, robust infrastructure for community sport, which is being achieved for the school system—including places and well qualified people oVering strong programmes which are accessible and relevant to all members of the community. (c) The Wolfenden Gap: More than 45 years ago, CCPR’s Wolfenden Commission drew attention to the gap between opportunities for young people at school and young people thereafter. This “Wolfenden Gap” still has not been bridged: 70% of our young people cease participating when they leave school, compared with 30% in France. If this is not addressed, then the good work being done in schools will merely build bridges into the air: sound foundations are needed on both sides of the divide. If there is not matching investment into the infrastructure for community sport and recreation, the excellent concept of the programme “Physical Education—School Sport—Club Links” will not be able to fulfil its potential. (d) Recognising reality: For the first time ever, the last General Household Survey (published 2004) indicated a decline in the number of young people (16–30 age groups) taking part in sport and recreation. The UK is not diVerent in this respect; the trends across Europe show “stagnation” in participation and club membership, explained by a whole range of factors, few of them within the control of providers of sport and recreation. The overall patterns of participation, too, have remained remarkably resistant to change, although there seems to be some increase among the over 40s (see section on health and physical activity) and significant increase in participation among young women (see paragraph below). It seems therefore obvious that the agencies which already deliver must be enabled to retain their existing participation; that measures to extend participation to groups not traditionally taking part are suYciently radical, yet long term enough for lasting eVect; and that structural factors like length of education are fully taken into account. (e) Further and high education: One opportunity which seems to have escaped strategic development is based on one of the most radical structural changes in the last 50 years—the increase in the proportion of young people in further and higher education. Since the relationship between life long participation and the length of educational involvement is well established, it seems obvious that with an increase from 11% to 50% of 18! year-olds in higher education; and 50% of 16–19 year-olds now in further education, these sectors oVer a superb opportunity to influence the choices and engagement of half our young people. While the TASS scheme oVers support in higher education for young performers, there is no systematic approach to encouraging those young people in the F&HE systems to continue to participate, to learn new skills and to volunteer. The Russell Commission proposals should help with volunteering; where is the parallel scheme for participation, possibly linked also with vocational training and upskilling? (f) Distinctive contribution of voluntary sector sport and recreation, NGBs and NSOs: The unique characteristics of voluntary sector sport and recreation have already been outlined—it is the only sector whose primary purpose and responsibility is the delivery and development of sport and recreation. However, clubs and organisation in the sector depend heavily on the infrastructure, facilities and services of local authorities, whose agendas for safer, stronger communities, economic and social regeneration, health promotion and quality of life are well served by a vibrant culture of active citizenship, including volunteering and participation in sport and recreation. The CCPR Red Book for Sport and Recreation records these valuable contributions. It therefore seems perverse that voluntary sector sport and recreation is excluded as a “specialist sector” from the current Home OYce and Treasury initiatives to support the voluntary sector. CCPR is the national infrastructure organisation for voluntary sector sport and recreation; as such, its remit is to promote and protect the interests of that sector. Currently, CCPR is concerned about 3049212003 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 9

the lack of sector-wide development, or even recognition of its special contribution within sport and voluntary sector policy. It is essential that government and its agencies avoid displacing or replicating—or competing with—services and functions which are properly and appropriately undertaken by voluntary organisations. CCPR welcomes and supports the notion of a British Foundation for British Sport to support grass roots development, and hopes that it can match the achievements of those NGBs which adopted the Voluntary Code on Television Rights5, setting up Foundations which have invested substantially in the development of their sports over many years. (g) Selectivity and funding: While CCPR recognises the need for and supports the policy of selectivity for investment in national governing bodies, the widening gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” (the Premier League and the Beleaguered) is a major cause for concern, since the non-funded sports and recreations account for as much community participation as do those which are funded. The incremental eVect of the targeted investment of all funding on a very few national governing bodies has resulted in a “two-speed economy” within the sector, with virtually no investment in sector-wide infrastructure or capacity- building. Even the modernisation fund which was available for three years to support national governing bodies’ organisational development has now had to be terminated so that the funding could be used to meet the needs of the world-class programmes no longer met by declining Lottery income. The most urgent need is to invest in the construction of a comprehensive data collection, data base and communication system which will allow eVective monitoring of trends, and enable the creative use of the consumer power of the collective membership of the sector. This would increase the capacity of organisations to use their membership databases and products to much better eVect, and increase their eVectiveness and viability. This poverty of investment in infrastructure for the sector as a whole is, partly at least, an outcome of the failure to secure increased exchequer funding for sport and recreation (in contrast to the arts). “Game Plan” stressed two overriding strategic objectives—increasing international success and increasing participation, mainly for the health outcomes associated with active lifestyles. The low level of current funding6, compared with competitor countries (£21 a head in this country, compared with £30 in Germany; £51 in Australia: £76 in Canada; and £112 in France), questions whether these two national strategic objectives can realistically be met. It is perhaps not surprising that our school leavers’ retention rates and adult participation lag behind those of our international competitors! The CCPR Challenge therefore includes the target to double exchequer funding for sport and recreation: to spend £120 million rather than £60 million pa would still not bring investment to the level of our competitors. If this were to be achieved, it would mean that those national governing bodies which have provided international success could translate that success into sustainable progress supported by exchequer funding, rather than being dependent upon shrinking lottery income, which should be spent on capital schemes, innovation and community development. It would also mean the potential for a truly strategic approach to the development of Community Sport, with sector-wide investment so that opportunities can be extended to the whole community to the whole range of sporting and recreational opportunity which is available; and there could be appropriate investment in voluntary sector sport and recreation, so that it can continue to provide the value for money which ODPM estimates as £30 for every government £1 invested—a best buy! (h) Structures and strategy It is also desirable that each of the delivery sectors, especially voluntary sector sport and recreation, is able to interface formally with national strategic development, and with those structures being set up at regional and sub-regional level to represent and promote sport. Currently, there is no way they can do so on a sector-wide basis, and consultation is restricted, often to paid oYcers within organisations already receiving direct funding, rather than with the sector as a whole. There is a distinct lack of disinterested strategic advice from the sectors which actually deliver. It has been disappointing that organisations outside the Regional Sports Boards have often been unable to access minutes of meetings, despite the Nolan principles and the Freedom of Information Act. Inclusion of sports in County Sports Partnerships, too, has been restricted in the main to the “priority” sports, which further widens the gap between the funded and non-funded sports. It is very important that these chronic weaknesses in infrastructure should be properly addressed, if the potential for strengthening community sport is to be achieved. The final point to make with regard to the agendas of regional agencies, which are mainly concerned with economic regeneration, is that with the exception of the “blue riband” international events mentioned earlier, the greatest economic benefit to cities and regions are from events which promote large numbers of bed nights from competitors and their families7. Most such events are based on veteran competitions or on world multi-sport events for particular professional groups, eg World Masters’ and Firefighters’ Games, traditional games and sports festivals, which would help to

5 Voluntary Code on Television Rights, CCPR available from publications section of www.ccpr.org.uk 6 All central government sources including Lottery. Data from Sport England, provided by McKinseys. 7 See Chris Gratton (2004) report to UK Sport on the economic benefits of international sports events. 3049212004 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 10 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

promote participation among the very groups which are being targeted for increasing levels of participation. Involvement of the whole voluntary sport and recreation sector would be essential for such events to be successful. (i) The Dream Team for Community Sport—local authorities and voluntary organisations: It is, of course, much more challenging to build a sustainable infrastructure for Community Sport than it is using the school system, where buildings, professional staV and privileged access to all children are available on which to build a system. It is therefore even more important that infrastructure development for Community Sport uses eVectively the best of what is already there— local authorities and voluntary sector sport and recreation. A strategic alliance between DCMS and the ODPM to support this crucial partnership, parallel and overlapping with “Physical Education— School Sport—Club Links”—“Sport at the Heart of the Community” would represent massive progress, stimulate sustainable investment in the same way, and help to show the attendant health benefits! While each of the four delivery sectors has an important and distinctive role to play, CCPR believes that for opportunities to be available to everyone in every community—the essence of this Inquiry— the “dream team” for Community Sport is systematic and sustainable partnership between voluntary sector sport and recreation and the local authorities, with good links with school provision. There are other bases for strategic development, with the impending inclusion of sport and recreation in local authorities’ comprehensive performance assessments, their duty within the 2004 Children Act to provide recreation for children, and government support for infrastructure and capacity-building in the wider voluntary sector. Local authorities have traditionally tried to ensure that local communities and people not able to aVord or access commercial provision, nevertheless have access to the joys and satisfaction of participation and achievement. Local authorities’ role in this area has been somewhat eroded during the last two decades, for a variety of reasons; but the agendas for social inclusion and community renewal, supported by local area agreements, should oVer the basis for exciting, new partnerships between local authorities and voluntary sport clubs and organisations serving their communities. CCPR believes that a strategic partnership of this kind would help to provide the “bottom-up”, systemic support which will be necessary, if the County Sports Partnerships are genuinely to provide an essential part of the infrastructure for local delivery. It is clear from the current situation that dependence on national sources of funding and on uncertain funding through NGB allocations will not provide the kind of sustainable funding which the CSPs require and deserve, if they are to do all they are expected to do. Other measures which could support this kind of partnership include more forceful encouragement of PPG17’s requirements for planning gain in sport and recreation facilities, possibly driven by the DCMS Facilities Group. (j) Health and physical activity: There is a need for more systematic investment in health-promoting physical activity, such as that oVered by several CCPR members (eg the Amateur Rowing Association’s “Rowed to Health”; EXTEND’s programmes of rehabilitation exercise for elderly and frail people in residential care; the Amateur Swimming Association’s and Swimming Teachers’ Association’s health promotion and cardiac rehabilitation schemes). It was disappointing to see so little recognition of the role of voluntary organisations in the Department of Health’s recently published Action Plan for Health: Physical Activity, when there is so much potential for further cooperation with Primary Care Trusts and Regional Health Authorities, and several NSOs whose primary purpose is to deliver health- promoting physical activity, and whose retention rates and ability to engage groups in the population who are not interested in competitive sport are impressive indeed. With regard to the health benefits of physical activity, the CCPR applauds the Committee’s focus on grass-roots sport and participation by children, young people and adult men and women, but urges that the focus be extended to older people (over 50), who are the largest age group in the population and who represent some of the greatest potential charges on the health budget, if appropriate provision is not made for them. CCPR is a member of the National Coalition for Active Ageing, which will be launching its campaign in June, to raise political awareness of the health benefits available to people over 50 from physical activity.

5. CCPR Recommendations (a) DCMS should consider a statement about the intrinsic values of sport and recreation, for inclusion in its five year plan and strategic work. (b) The DCMS Strategy for the Voluntary and Community Sector should be better developed, in collaboration with the Sector. 3049212004 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 11

(c) The principles of the Compact, Compact Plus and Treasury Guidelines for funders, already adopted in the generic and other specialist voluntary sectors, should be adopted by DCMS and the sports councils. In particular, the principle that voluntary sector development should be sector-led, should be adopted and enacted by the sports councils. (d) Contractual and procurement procedures and processes should be reviewed and reframed, in collaboration with main funding partners, using the above principles. (e) There should be a collaborative review of the role of the sports councils in developing infrastructure and building capacity among the national governing bodies and their clubs. This should include consideration of systematic, sector-wide support systems which would help to ensure a more sustainable future for governing bodies not prioritised for funding by the sports councils, especially those contributing significantly to levels of participation, eg walking/rambling, dance and movement, outdoor and adventurous activities. (f) There should be consideration of the distinctive governmental advocacy or leadership roles which should appropriately be played by UK Sport and Sport England, eg: — UK Sport—as well as leading on all aspects of performance sport, UK Sport should take a strategic lead on UK-wide infrastructure issues aVecting participation, eg vocational/professional qualifications and their funding (aVects UKCC but soon will aVect other professional strands, eg sports management, governance etc); access to the countryside and water; representation and ambassadorial roles; — Sport England—strategic review, with leaders/infrastructure organisations for four delivery sectors to identify how systematic, sustainable delivery can be achieved and maintained; review of current ways to supporting and consulting voluntary sector at national, regional and sub- regional levels. (g) There should be a cross-departmental Champion for voluntary sector sport and recreation, whose role will be to consult with the sectors and the other sectors, to prevent unintended and negative impact from fiscal, regulatory and legislative burdens; and from policies and schemes which displace or replicate voluntary sector sport and recreation services or functions. CCPR would be happy to help with the supply of information and briefings. (h) In all projects working towards any element of “professionalisation” in sport, adequate consultation should be undertaken and measures taken to retain and support existing volunteers. (i) There should be a collaborative review, involving DCMS, CCPR and the Treasury to identify fiscal measures which will relieve some of the pressures on voluntary sports clubs and their volunteers, and which can be used to make the case for budgets in future comprehensive spending reviews. (j) The 2004 Home OYce consultation on the eVects of risk and insurance on sport and recreation should be extended to cover the eVects of all pressures on volunteers and their organisations. (k) A case (based on contribution to social capital and % volunteering) for investment in voluntary sector sport and recreation infrastructure should be presented to the DCMS and the Home OYce, to secure a commitment to ensure that the generalist and specialist voluntary sectors are properly articulated and mutually supportive. (l) DCMS and ODPM should consult with the voluntary sector and local government to devise a programme of infrastructure development and capacity building, to support a major scheme (eg “Sport at the Heart of the Community”) addressing the community development and community sport agendas, and linking with “Physical Education—School Sport—Club Links”. (m) The DfES should be requested to consider a voucher scheme to support volunteers seeking to obtain, renew or upgrade qualifications to deliver sport and recreation in the community. (n) Department of Health should be approached to consider strategically, how voluntary sector sport and recreation can be supported to contribute to the Action Plan for physical activity. Particular attention should be paid to the needs of and potential for securing health benefits for people in the over-50s age groups. (o) There should be a systematic review of current and potential commercial and private sector provision for Community Sport, and the fiscal and regulatory measures which could encourage and enable accessible provision for local people. 1 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Local Government Association

Key Points — The Local Government Association (LGA) welcomes the opportunity to give written evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into Community Sport. A request was sent out to a number of LGA advisors from Local authorities in England and Wales to seek comments for inclusion within the LGA submission to this inquiry. 3049212005 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 12 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— The inquiry was announced on the 16 March 2005 with a deadline for written submission to be received by Friday 1 April. Due to the short timescale a full and detailed response has not been possible, however the Association wishes to raise a few key points for consideration. — Living in a healthy, prosperous and active community is a key issue for local people and therefore for local government. The LGA and its members are willing to work with government to find real, long term solutions to improve sport participation. — The association would wish to seek a new commitment by central government to a clear focus of working together with local government and other partners to improve participation. Key to this would be for central government to: — Develop long term, properly resourced approaches to increasing participation rates and supporting community sport. — Develop clear messages of the benefits of sport, consistently presented over a long period of time. — Resource and support the “hub” club principals of working together towards multi-sport clubs that link with Education and Health. — Provide a clear role to local authorities to operate as the essential link between schools and the voluntary sector/club sport to break down the artificial barriers relating to the sports provision in local government areas and have a total community based approach. — The traditional product-led “sports development” approach needs to be reviewed with a more needs-based approach based on an understanding of personal and social circumstances. — Start to seek innovative opportunities to increase and widen the base of participation in sport eg ensuring that projects such as Building Schools for the future (BSF) for example considers the wider local need to supply facilities for community sports. — Continue to identify areas to reduce bureaucratic burdens in community sport. The Making adiVerence project, led by the Cabinet OYce and DCMS, has already identified improvements to be introduced over the next six months.

Local Government Association 1. The Local Government Association (LGA) was formed on 1 April 1997 and represents the local authorities of England and Wales—a total of just under 500 authorities. These local authorities represent over 50 million people and spend around £78 billion pounds per annum. The LGA is a voluntary lobbying organisation representing local government. Local authorities do not have to join but nearly all local authorities in England and Wales are in membership.

The LGA Vision 2. The recognition that exercise through participation in sporting activities makes people healthier is nothing new, however the facts show that we are becoming an increasingly sedentary nation. For example obesity in England has tripled over the last 20 years and continues to rise. The National Audit OYce estimated that, in 1998, obesity accounted for around 18 million days of sickness absence and 30,000 premature deaths8—Britain is becoming ever more unhealthy. 3. The LGA, in its manifesto for local communities9, outlined its vision for building strong and healthy communities and the important role that local government plays. It is clear that by promoting a healthier and active lifestyle there can be considerable benefits to both the individual and society as a whole. Sport participation also provides a focus for social activity, an opportunity to make friends, develop networks, reduce social isolation and increase self-confidence. 4. Grassroots sport plays and important role in activating communities and individuals to access sporting activities. It is a key avenue in getting people interested in sports, nurturing talent and improving general health and well-being. 5. The LGA has welcomed a number of various central government or NDPB led initiatives. Government, however, needs to acknowledge that short term initiatives, without proper long term funding provisions do not result in long term change. Community sport provision now needs a real long term vision and approach in order to tackle participation rates. 6. With the Olympic bid as a backdrop, central government and partners need to work together to promote the benefit of sport participation at all levels to ensure that this unique opportunity is fully exploited. Community sport provision should play a vital role in the development of a sustainable legacy for sport.

8 National Audit OYce (1998). 9 Local Government Association (2004), Independence, Opportunity, Trust: a manifesto for local communities, London: LGA. 3049212005 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 13

7. Local authorities are already taking action to improve participation rates within their communities and help meet the government target. For example, authorities have: — Set pricing policies to allow easy access by all parts of the community. — Targeted approach to disadvantaged communities in particular. — Enabling local clubs to improve and develop and help them seek funding and support them in targeting priority groups. — Supported and provided facilities located within disadvantaged communities, providing easy access to sport and leisure opportunities. — Employed outreach staV, linking with schools, health providers, etc to promote the benefits of sport and the opportunities for taking part. 8. A number of informative case studies of what local authorities, often together with partners or community organisations, are already doing to improve participation rates through community sport provision are outlined in Appendix A.

APPENDIXA

INTERESTING EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY SPORTS INITIATIVES

Positive Futures in Lichfield

Lichfield District Council

This project uses sport and leisure as a diversionary tool for those at risk from anti-social behaviour. Activities in the programme include sports (such as kick aerobics, basketball, girls football, trampoline, table tennis, rounders), free swimming for disability groups, trips (eg rock climbing and soccerama) education and training sessions (eg anti-smoking and FA referee courses) and links to local clubs. The project is open to all young people who reside within the target wards; young people, however, can also be referred onto the project by key partners. B is a young man aged 16 who was referred to Positive Futures by a Crime Diversion OYcer. After a consultation he was oVered the chance to join in with football training. He successfully completed a three month football course and then undertook a level 1 FA coaching certificate. He now works for Positive Futures as a football coach as well as working as a volunteer coach for a local junior football club.

Asians in Football in Luton

Luton Borough Council

This project was designed to increase the participation in football by children and young people from an ethnic minority background, particularly Asian. The project has grown since 1998 with the support of a grant from the Football Association and a successful bid to “Awards for all” scheme to establish: — Regular coaching sessions at lunchtime, after school and weekend sessions in 13 primary and junior schools with a high ethnic minority population (greater than 45%). — An annual football festival attracting over 30 boys and girls teams. — An increased number of schools participating in football competitions. — A new junior football club, Luton United FC. — A pool of qualified coaches. — A strong partnership between the borough council, Sport Action Zone, Luton Town Football in the Community and Luton United FC. The project has provided regular coaching in football for 10 schools with a predominantly Asian attendance. This in turn has led to schools that had not previously not entered inter-school competition, participating in an annual summer football festival, which over five years has grown to an event attracting over 30 boys and girls teams. The formation of Luton United FC has provided an exit route for those pupils who wish to regularly participate in local junior league football. The club has also identified and trained senior members and adults as football coaches and referees, who in addition to assisting the running of the club, support the coaching sessions in schools and provide holiday programmes. 3049212005 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 14 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Social Inclusion through Disability Sports in Eastbourne

Eastbourne Borough Council In May 2001 Eastbourne Borough Council finalised an action plan to increase the opportunities of local people with disabilities to participate in sport and appointed a Disability Sport Assistant. Today over 100 young people and adults with disabilities enjoy a wide range of sports along with over 40 students from local mainstream schools and colleges to add even more fun and competition to the sessions. Each week the Disability Sport Assistant leads after school clubs, lunchtime integrated clubs, sessions with special schools and adult disability groups and a leisure centre-based club open to any adult with a disability. A full range of sports and games are played, ranging from football to boccia, with each activity adapted to meet the requirements of those participating. One locally developed game that is popular with both sexes, and all ages and abilities is “Targetball”, using a mixture of rules from basketball, netball and cricket.

Sportslinx in Liverpool

Liverpool City Council Sportslinx started in 1997 as an intervention programme to tackle childhood obesity and to improve the general health and well-being of young people across Liverpool. With support from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Sportslinx has expanded into a multi-faceted programme encompassing a whole range of added initiatives encouraging young people to take part in more grassroots sport and physical activity programmes, healthy eating clubs, referral schemes, talent identification sessions and community coach education programmes. NRF funds have played an integral role enabling local people to be trained as sports coaches and youth leaders in local communities, then going on to deliver sessions as the local coach or mentor in their school. This programme has helped ensure that the project can be sustained as well as providing employment opportunities among local residents. All sessions take place on school premises over a 6 to 18 week period. On completion of the clubs children are encouraged and given a Sports Directory that helps them contact sports clubs in their own community. April 2005

Witnesses: Prof Margaret Talbot OBE, Chief Executive, Central Council for Physical Recreation; Mr Charles Stringer, Chairman, Hertfordshire Junior Cricket Committee, and President, Nazeing Common Cricket Club; Ms Linda Neal, Honorary Secretary, Sheppey Rugby Football Club; Mr Dan Bloxham, Head Coach, All England Lawn Tennis Club; and Mr Peter Baveystock, Chairman, Hounslow Sports Forum, examined.

Q1 Alan Keen: Goodmorning.Firstofall,canI Ms Neal: I am Linda Neal, the Secretary of Sheppey apologise that I am not Gerald Kaufman, as you can Rugby Club which is a grassroots rugby club. probably see. I think he is playing football this Mr Bloxham: Dan Bloxham. I am the head coach at morning, but he is coming along any minute now. To the All England Club and I run the Wimbledon me and all of us here it is a very important issue that Junior Tennis Initiative Scheme which is a schools we are talking about this morning, so can I thank not scheme where we play tennis in schools every week. only the people who are giving evidence, but those who Mr Baveystock: I am Pete Baveystock. I am have come along out of interest as well because it is Chairman of the Grasshoppers Rugby Club, which such an important issue. I thought we might start by is also a sports club as well, and I am Chairman of your introducing yourselves and then we will ask the Hounslow Sports Forum. questions. You will have learnt from politicians that Alan Keen: Thank you and welcome to all of you. we do not just give the answers to the questions that we are asked, but we make sure that we get the points over Q2 Derek Wyatt: I think I ought to declare that I am that we want to get over irrespective of the question, so a member of Sheppey Rugby Club which is in my Ijustwanttoencourageyoutobedisciplined. constituency and my son plays for them too. Linda, Mr Stringer: I am Charles Stringer and I am can I ask you first, on the one hand, it seems that we Chairman of the Junior Cricket Committee for have oVered you a rate reduction and, on the other Hertfordshire, I am the President of Nazeing hand, we have landed you with a substantial licence Common Cricket Club and I am an active member fee increase. What is the truth of the matter for and past President of Hertford Rugby Club. Sheppey? Prof Talbot: I am Margaret Talbot, Chief Executive Ms Neal: It is diYcult financially because the costs of CCPR, which is the umbrella for the national 1 originally for licensing laws, we paid a single fee sports organisations. which gave us a licence for five years and we have now been saddled with a fee for licensing our 1 CCPR protects the interests of voluntary sector sport and recreation, including the sports national governing bodies. premises based on our rateable value, which is the There are 138,000 sports clubs with 13 million memberships full rateable value, not the reduction that we got in its member organisations. from the Council, plus an annual administration fee. 3049213001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 15

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock

Q3 Derek Wyatt: So in terms of what it does to your Sir Gerald Kaufman resumed the Chair balance sheet, in the next year then what is the diVerence you are having to pay? Ms Neal: It is diYcult to quantify that exactly, but Q9 Derek Wyatt: Does the Act give discretion to the we are paying, I would think, probably at least £200 Minister and could he take into consideration both over the top of the old licence fee and then if we have points you have made this morning? special functions, we still have to get a special licence Prof Talbot: At the moment, no, we do not think so. for that, so that is an extra fee. We have always We think that your suggestion of the reduction in the resisted in the past as a club applying for extensions rates related to the CASC registration would be a to licensing which I think is what Richard Caborn very sensible way forward and it would also took into account, that it would not cost us as much, encourage more clubs to become CASCs, so we but we have resisted applying for special licences (a) think that that would be a very good interpretation because they were diYcult to get, and (b) because of of the fees as they are set out at the moment. the cost involved, so we have always stuck within the licensing laws and not had extensions. Q10 Derek Wyatt: When the Bill was going through, did you raise this with Richard Caborn? Q4 Derek Wyatt: And if the licence fee was based on Prof Talbot: We raised it with the Secretary of State the 80% reduction, what do you think you would several times and with the Minister, but mainly with be paying? the Secretary of State, but we had no response. Ms Neal: That would make it much more manageable. Q11 Derek Wyatt: Did anyone else have this licence issue versus rates issue? Q5 Derek Wyatt: I think you wrote to Richard Mr Stringer: There is the problem of trying to get the Caborn. balance right in going for CASC, and the problem Ms Neal: I did. comes with the question of going for CASC which is very useful that of course it does involve a lot of administration and changing your constitution to Q6 Derek Wyatt: What was his response to your comply with the CASC requirements, and there is problems? the timing factor because some constitutions can Ms Neal: Well, basically he was saying that he did only be changed at AGMs and you have to wait, so V not feel that it would make a lot of di erence to clubs there have been delays in getting this through and because, as I say, he was taking into account the these are the sorts of problems that are licence extensions, the amount over two or three consequential on CASC. When you get it, it is fine years and he reckoned or estimated that after three and it is going to make a diVerence, but of course one years we would be in parity, and that is not true has then got to balance it up against the cost of the because the annual administration fee will suck new licensing. In the case of some of the clubs I that up. know, it will go one way and in the case of other clubs, it will go another. It depends on the prosperity Q7 Derek Wyatt: How much is that? of a particular club. Small clubs will suVer, whereas Ms Neal: It is based on about 10% of the initial fee. medium-sized and big clubs will probably benefit.

Q8 Derek Wyatt: Margaret, my Sittingbourne Golf Q12 Derek Wyatt: Linda, in Kent and the wider Club have also written to me and I am really area, are all the rugby clubs stuck with this? interested in this. What have you found out across Ms Neal: Yes, I would think they probably are. We the board in community sports clubs? Are we giving are slightly diVerent in that we are not CASC- with one hand and taking back with the other and is registered at Sheppey. We are actually registered it worse in that we are taking much more back under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. because of the licence fee increase? We took that out several years ago as the way to go Ms Talbot: I think it depends on the nature of the because we were finding it diYcult to get trustees to club. For some clubs that is exactly what is stand as guarantor, so we took the opportunity then happening, and not only giving and taking back, but to register and, therefore, it is not viable for us to go taking back more because of the rateable value issue for CASC now because it involves too many changes which Linda has mentioned, so clubs have struggled and disadvantages to us. We own our own club and to get themselves pitches and pavilions and changing grounds and probably amongst a lot of other rugby rooms and the fee is based on all of that estate, not clubs and other sports clubs we are pretty unique just on the licensed premises, so the fee is actually the and we are in the minority. Most clubs use council same for many clubs as it would be for a 24/7 facilities, whereas we own ours so that we are drinking establishment, which does not seem to be responsible for all the costs of maintaining our sensible. For instance, there is a little cricket club in grounds and we cannot go to the Council and say, Yorkshire, way up on the moors, which only opens “Please come and mow the grass?” or whatever, but its bar on match nights in the season and that club similarly we are not restricted by them saying, “Oh, will be woefully out of pocket as a result of the it’s a bit muddy this weekend, so you can’t play”, so licensing fee, despite it being a CASC. it has its advantages and disadvantages. 3049213001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 16 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock

Q13 Chris Bryant: As a Welshman, I would hate to DCMS and the Home OYce in making sure that the gloat with so many English rugby representatives new system would not be too onerous and in fact here! I am patron of a rugby club in the Rhondda, in they are already saying that it is too onerous. my constituency, and a member of several others, and the pattern there over the licensing has been that Q15 Chris Bryant: But clearly the old £5 licence was most of the clubs on a Friday or a Saturday night nowhere near matching the cost of even sending out will either be showing sport of some kind or other the letters. V and the biggest increase that has a ected them most Prof Talbot: Well, actually it is quite interesting and dramatically has been the increase in fees from Sky that is another issue. We do not believe that sports as opposed to the increase in this licence and most of clubs are a problem to police with regard to them have actually, although I am probably not drinking. If you look at the costing of the binge meant to say this, been staying open rather later than drinking which came out yesterday, for instance, we the law allows and actually the clubs locally to me rang the police superintendents’ association when have said that they welcome the changes. Does any we were first lobbying on this and asked them if they of that ring a bell with any of you? thought that licensed sports clubs were a problem Prof Talbot: I think one of the big problems is the and they just laughed because they think that this is fact that this is yet another incremental pressure on responsible licensing and drinking in a way which volunteers and their clubs. It is not just this, but the police or other local authority charges do not there are so many straws in the wind that come flying have to make, so I actually think that there is a whole at volunteers, so they are also dealing with CRB raft of pressures which have been dumped on clubs checks, they are dealing with the pressures of risk of in such a way that there has been no impact analysis litigation, which several members of the Committee and there has been no thought as to where the cost know about, and I think it is yet another straw which of application, the cost of policing and the cost of might break the camel’s back and stop volunteers inspection really ought to fall. coming forward or will make them say that it is just too much. As Linda has just said, the new Q16 Chris Bryant: At the moment I have got the arrangements are much more bureaucratic and impression that golf players and rugby players all much more onerous for clubs than the old drink a lot and tennis players never drink at all! arrangements where a single five-year fee got Mr Bloxham: Athletes obviously! Obviously the everything that most clubs needed for their sporting licensing side is not my specialist field and Mr and social events over the following five years, so I Crowther will be coming with those sorts of ideas, think it is the incremental problems that are really but certainly tennis clubs historically are not known hitting the clubs and it is not only the licensing fee. I for raves which get out of control and I would say think the other thing is the total lack of justice in that we are quite a safe bet along with these folks using rateable value as a way of estimating the fee here. levels because, as I have already said, clubs which have really done a lot of fund-raising to raise money V for their own pitches and keep them up to date, to Q17 Chris Bryant: Can I ask a completely di erent Y build pavilions and to build changing rooms are then question about pitches. One of the di culties we rated on the whole of the thing, not just on the little have locally is that because many of the pitches are administered by the local authority and then the club bit of the licensed premises which they open maybe V a couple of nights a week, so they are in eVect will rent the pitch o the local authority, the local subsidising the licensing of fully licensed premises authority will send somebody to one pitch in the whole of the local authority early on the Saturday 24/7. morning and will say, “No, you can’t play on this pitch”, which means you cannot play on any of the Q14 Chris Bryant: That bit seems rather parallel to pitches in the local authority, which seems a the discussion which was had in the Committee ludicrously sort of centralised version of life. I just when the Statutory Instrument came before us, wonder whether that is an experience which is held which I sat on, though we only had an hour and a generally or maybe this is just a Valleys problem, but half’s debate. Nonetheless, there was a debate about is that an experience elsewhere? the issue of showgrounds with the single tent that is Mr Baveystock: It is not a problem we have in the middle and an enormous showground being personally, but definitely for club teams we play, rated for the whole ground rather than just the tent there has been an early cancellation on the Friday and that there is a problem there, and the Minister afternoon, for instance, because most local gave the assurance that it was just the tent that was authorities work Monday to Friday and they will do going to be rated. Is there not some means of their inspection on a Friday afternoon before the achieving the same? overnight frost may go or a strong wind may dry it Prof Talbot: Well, that is another thing that could be up, so the weekend’s sport is cancelled because of done, but the big problem has always been with the that. Licensing Act that the local authorities to whom the whole process is being transferred do not want, quite Q18 Chris Bryant: And why do they do that? What properly, further charges of administration. The is the necessity that drives that because they seem to LGA were very, very vociferous in their lobbying to cancel an awful lot of matches unnecessarily? 3049213001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 17

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock

Mr Baveystock: I think it is because of their own instance in Hertfordshire, we have an extremely pressures on resources and they may not have good relationship with all the ten district authorities. somebody or probably would not allow a Over the years we have talked to them and we have groundsman to make the decision later and the worked with their liaison development oYcers and oYcer will make the decision early on, I would think. sport development oYcers and they now in each Prof Talbot: I think we have an opportunity with the district at the beginning of the season will circulate proposals for the comprehensive performance to all clubs and schools to ask if anybody wants to assessments which have gone from the Audit start playing cricket and then they are paying for and Commission that sport and recreation within the running a whole series of winter coaching of 11-, 13- culture bloc should now be represented in the and 15-year-olds which we as a county support with comprehensive performance assessments and, our coaches and advise them, but they actually do it therefore, local authorities will have to report on and administer it and that has built up over the years their performance regarding the provision of sport and it works because in terms of participation, they and recreation. Voluntary sector clubs depend very will get the participation and in terms of excellence, heavily on local authority facilities and it is a very it will produce the boys that come through to the important part of the infrastructure, but you are county so that we can put them into a series of trials right to say that if there is an issue of performance and sub-county operations, so we have a pyramid which probably is, as my colleague has said, related going through. We have told other counties about to resources, then it needs to be addressed, but I this and we have told our governing body about the think it is an issue of resources and performance way that we have got it, but it does not seem to be rather than system and I think we need to talk about working very well in other counties, so it is a ways of making sure that that partnership at local question where we think we have established some level between voluntary clubs and local authorities is good practice in Hertfordshire which we think could properly supported so that both sides of the be rolled out across the board. It requires a lot of partnership do their work well. personal lobbying with sports development oYcers and with the local authorities because if you have got Q19 Alan Keen: I am particularly interested in links an operation that you can run and organise, they will between schools and clubs and hopefully in some support it because they do not have to do a great deal sports the veteran sport as well and can I address my of work, it is there for them, so we start it rolling and questions first of all to Pete because we took the they keep pushing and it gets better, so that is where initiative locally, a few of us, to form a sports forum I think good practice ought to be taken into account in Hounslow in order to try and get the best out of and rolled out a lot more. In other sports also we find the facilities we have got and to help maybe smaller that if you woo—and I use that word advisedly clubs less eYcient than Pete’s Grasshoppers to run because most of them are female—the sports Y their clubs and give advice. I wonder if I can ask Pete development o cers, you can actually make a big to tell us a little bit about it. It is very much in its practice, but you have got to persuade them that early days, is it not? they are going to get the benefit and their benefit is Y Mr Baveystock: Yes, we actually appointed a that they can say to their council and their o cers, community liaison oYcer on to the Executive “Hey, look at what we have done. We’ve got 300 Committee specifically to form links with the local kids playing”. The District Council in Hertfordshire community, so we gave our facilities free of charge each year will have something like 2,500 young boys to schools if they did not have the facilities and girls playing cricket, some of them for the first themselves and that is something we are going to time, so that is good, but the back view is that it progress. Further than that, it is about linking into overloads us and it overloads the clubs with players the Hounslow Sports Forum, forming that forum, who then cannot get into clubs because the clubs are and my firm belief is that we do need to get restricted because they have not got enough youngsters into sport at an early age. It is not just volunteers to do it and because of some of the getting them into sport at an early age and coming legislation that is coming from the cricket boards. through and being good sportsmen, but they then For example, in a cricket club, you have got to have will be the new administrators and will be sitting a level-one coach for every 15 boys or girls that you here in a few years’ time. They will be the ones who have got and to become a level-one coach requires are going to run the sport and the one thing that giving up a certain amount of time and money to pay sport needs is not only new people coming through for the facility to become a level-one coach. Then, on to play sport, but young, new and enthusiastic top of that, because you have all these youngsters administrators to be running it as well and we have coming through from the club point of view, there just got to keep people coming through and I think are things like the CRB and those problems which the links with the community are vital to do that. It are inhibiting volunteers from coming in. If I can is really important and I know that Hounslow give you an example, I have got a 70-year-old lady Council are very keen on creating that link and we scorer who has scored for the last 30 years for one of want to keep that going. the junior sides and she has been told that she has got Mr Stringer: If I could add to that, there is good to have a CRB check and, although she is perfectly practice and bad practice and I think that good clear, she says, “To hell with it!” and it is those sorts practice ought to be identified and it ought then to of things which are inhibiting and these are the be sold across the board. If I can just give you an problems that are coming for clubs because with 3049213001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 18 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock those factors, you cannot get the volunteers, so you together and the leadership to keep all of that going. have got to pay people. There again, by paying The big problem now is to make sure that as we build people, you need subsidising and that is not the links into the clubs, we are not building bridges happening either. In the case of cricket, the Cricket into the air because what we do not have on the other Foundation which dishes money out to us has side of the river, if you like, is the same kind of secure specifically taken administration costs out of their infrastructure that we have in the schools system. It grant and the ECB have reduced the grant that they is about places, people and programmes and the give to cricket counties for administration, leadership to put those together and that is really therefore, it comes back on the clubs and again is what desperately needs to be done now, otherwise loaded on the volunteers. This is the feeling, that it is we are creating a generation of young people who actually weighing heavily on grassroots clubs at the will have a quality of experience in schools and then moment, the ability to get volunteers, the problems will go into a rather fragmented situation later. of dealing with that and all the things we have just Now, we do have some good examples of links with heard about CASC licensing which all require physical education, school sport and club links, but administration, even for the smallest club. I am the it is the infrastructure on the other side which President of a village cricket club and we have to desperately needs investment and development and, have meeting after meeting to try and determine how I think, brokering to bring the whole thing together we fill this form in and what we do and it is very because the delivery sectors are there, the potential diYcult to get help and assistance on that. These are infrastructure is there, and it is bringing it together the things that really are the serious problems and and using it sensibly and some investment in that although licensing and those things are important, infrastructure which is needed. the real problem, in my view, is trying to encourage volunteers and to remove some of the inhibitions you get towards volunteers. Q21 Rosemary McKenna: Dan, perhaps you could tell us how your experience links into schools and is that going to be rolled out? Q20 Rosemary McKenna: Can I specifically Mr Bloxham: I think the good thing, sitting here, is concentrate on young people in sport because I think that everything is very positive, and in all the other that is actually the biggest issue that the country is sports as well. Obviously I am from the All England facing at the moment. We understand now the Club which is perceived as a fairly traditional club relationship between inactivity, bad diet and life and obviously a very big and famous club. What we expectancy and health and certainly in my have done is we go to two schools a week in the experience in my constituency where I have very boroughs of Merton and Wandsworth and in the successful clubs in football, rugby, gymnastics, last four years we have worked with 27,000 kids and swimming, you name it, I find very little relationship 125 schools and the actual local authorities have between them and young people, particularly in been outstanding, so it is maybe a good one to hear schools. Is the Government doing anything actually about of the sport, the governing body, a big club or to say, “You have a role to play”, that the sports a business working in partnership and actually clubs have a role to play in doing anything to having a successful result which is something we encourage you to get young people involved in sport maybe all want to see more often. The local at a very young age? authorities pick our schools that we go to, we go to Prof Talbot: Of course in your own country there the schools and originally we took every single child has been a great deal done, particularly in terms of from the first six schools and came back to the All commitment to physical education, and it has beaten England Club for free coaching. Because we have England to the commitment to two hours a week in not got the biggest facilities possible, now every the curriculum, although I understand it has been school we go to, we actually take six players back having trouble recruiting the physical education from the schools for free coaching and they are teachers to deliver it. I do think the commitment to coached and helped to further their career. What we have that by 2010 in England is very, very welcome. have done with the local authorities in Merton and I would like to see faster progress, but I think the Wandsworth, which has been unbelievably positive, emerging infrastructure from the investment into is we have actually set up an all-year-round tennis school physical education and sport is one of the programme which is in the local authority areas and great progress stories of the last 10 years. Fifteen the parks to get it slightly subsidised, so the trick is years ago I was very, very pessimistic about the obviously to go to the schools and the schools are whole future of sport and physical education for absolutely loving everything we do and they want us young people and the school system and now I think to go back more and more. We have not been to a that has been retrieved or is in the process of being school where the kids have not been inspired and I retrieved and some very, very good work is being, think that would be the same with any sport. The and has been, done in that and there is some good teachers enjoy the fact that you can give them a lot practice which is actually being shared. I think that is of help with their lessons and they can increase their what makes the diVerence. The infrastructure is the knowledge on how to deliver sport within the school, places which are already in the schools, the people, and the local authorities, if you can show them it is who are the paid teachers of course, and the whole going to have a positive eVect on the kids, et cetera, raft of NGB coaches, some volunteers, some paid, et cetera, they are actually very willing to be involved and programmes which actually cement all of those and they do quite a lot of work for us. At Easter 3049213001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 19

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock there is a booklet which is sent out to every child in Kids want to play sport and they want to have fun every school we go to and in that there is tennis and and obviously we realise how beneficial that is. I also all the other sports, but we will run the tennis think on our scheme the behaviour of the kids, and section for the local authority, so they can go and we have been to some interesting schools, some play in a park which is near them. It is a slightly Ofsted ones slightly in crisis, the FreshStart larger jump whereas I think there is a bit of a missing schools with behavioural problems, we really have link in that if we go from schools to club which is not failed in any school to have a positive impact. quite a scary jump. I think the schools to local Obviously if that happens more and more, then the authority skill days where maybe the coaches from kids are getting more quality experience and the governing bodies or the local county body of that hopefully will turn into better young people. sport would be there and then to jump into a club, it is very unusual maybe for the average child to go from the school straight into a club, but we have facilities in local authority areas. We have 20 courts Q23 Michael Fabricant: Apropos of nothing, when I in Wimbledon Park which is just near the Club, so sold my radio company back in 1990 I decided I we will then do all our coaching in Wimbledon Park, would become a Member of Parliament and my the kids get into it every holiday, and then we invite business partner decided to become a Lawn Tennis the clubs to come along to hand out their Association coach, so I am going to carry on, if I memberships and explain what they do. That really, may, with Rosemary’s question as I am quite I think, is the middle ground which needs to be really curious. What was the actual genesis, if you like, of worked on. As Mr Bryant said, with local authorities your initiative? What made the Wimbledon Lawn where certainly the guys who open the gates to the Tennis Club decide to do this admirable thing? courts and say, “Sorry, it’s not nine yet”, or “It’s five Mr Bloxham: Obviously, like all clubs and all now”, or “It’s dusk”, that is the slight mentality, but grandslams, you need to move forward and I think if you can actually work with the hierarchy of that the All England Club realised that. Their department in the local authority, it is amazing how relationship with the community was very good, it quickly that guy then opens the court for you, but if created employment, finance, et cetera, but they felt you went as an independent person, he would not let they needed to put something more back into the you play. If his boss says, “Actually we’re really into community really. Also they respond to the press sport these days and we want the courts open as and also they have issues with Merton and much as possible”, the whole thing starts rolling in Wandsworth regarding planning, so the best way the right direction. forward for us was really to work with the junior development. I went to the Club and said, “This is what I would like to try and do. How do you feel?” Q22 Rosemary McKenna: And is that happening and they were very positive to try and actually get to in the Local Government Association? Is that kind do something first-hand with the local community. of information going in there which they are operating? We brought the local authorities in to discuss what we do and they actually organised the sessions for us, Mr Bloxham: I think Merton and Wandsworth have been shining boroughs really. The Club so each term time they give us two schools, one in Merton and one in Wandsworth, and every Tuesday obviously worked with those two boroughs V normally, but they have been amazed at how the and Wednesday we go o and do a school visit. I partnership between the Club and the boroughs think the relationship between the boroughs has has just flourished really. They are going out of been improved immeasurably. The Club are really their way. We used a Wandsworth minibus the enjoying it. Tim Phillips comes down every Saturday other day to take some kids to a tournament and and starts throwing balls around for the kids and the they put me through my Wandsworth driving test Club is now used when they are on the museum in the minibus, but anything that we want, they are visits, so the Club is benefiting. The schools are actually co-operating with because it is having enjoying it because all the teachers actually come such a massive eVect on the kids, the community back for one evening a year and have an evening at and the schools, so I think certainly it is getting the Wimbledon when they can do a few more things, a sports to go and help in the schools to encourage little hit, a nice glass of wine, so they are really the kids and whichever child you go to at whatever enjoying it. When we go to the schools, we make all level, they all want to do that. They want to be the teachers participate in the sessions, so the kids involved, they want to be enthused and they love can actually see their teachers being involved, so it. I do not think it matters what sport you are if when they try and deliver the same sort of day as we you have good people in the schools to get them have done, the kids see then that they were involved going, but then your link is the local authority as well, so the teachers are gaining, I think, quite a courts, pitches, whatever and you need to have lot on the idea of what sports you can teach at the quality guys working there and then your clubs schools, et cetera, et cetera. All in all, it has been a can come into that. I do think obviously that there really positive sort of scheme and I think for all of is no point in building these very well-built bridges our sports they have a traditional umbrella where into thin air, and the clubs need to improve as well possibly the media, especially with the All England and that is in every sport, I am sure, and then Club, would say that we drink a lot of Pimms, et obviously you have your funding issues on top. cetera, et cetera, which is true— 3049213001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 20 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock

Q24 Derek Wyatt: It is very fattening! other day which was very interesting and we did Mr Bloxham:—but now actually there have been something with the Youth Sports Trust and I think, pieces done where we are now the leading light on like you said, good practice is something that is teaching in schools. getting better and the more it can be spread around, the better, but I think the Club is literally trying to Q25 Michael Fabricant: So you have got a little have a beginning with the schools. We have three cluster of excellence there and it is great to hear that performance players at the moment who actually those two councils are co-operating well with you, played at seven o’clock this morning and maybe one but Wimbledon is really a nationally, if not an of those players will be the player, we do not know, internationally, recognised organisation. How can but what we are trying to do is create a perfect role model within our two counties, our two boroughs, you spread out your initiative to young people? V Probably you cannot directly, but how can you and then hopefully that e ect will have an impact on spread it out throughout the rest of the United the other areas. Kingdom? Do you have any contact with other similar organisations to perhaps oVer best practice? Q27 Michael Fabricant: How are you funded? Are Prof Talbot: I think it is worth saying that there is a you getting funding solely from the All England framework of physical education, school sport and Club or are you getting any government money or club links within which the LTA and sport generally Lottery money or what? works and there is some investment going through Mr Bloxham: Obviously the All England Club is the governing bodies, and no doubt the governing financed by itself, but we have had some money bodies which come in the next session can tell you towards our performance players. This year we have more about the way in which that operates. There is, actually had money towards ten of our under-ten therefore, the capacity to share experience, but it is players, which is from the LTA. The All England limited to a certain number of sports and that is one Club, which is interesting, obviously it is a club, but of the problems that we have at the moment in terms it is a business and it can finance the scheme itself, of the somewhat fragmented way in which we are but there are an awful lot of businesses that want to building these bridges. We are showing that some be involved with our scheme. We actually do not sports can deliver, and Dan’s account, I think, very need any financial help from anyone else as the Club graphically and warmly shows that that delivery is is quite well oV, so it is actually delighted to put the happening and happening well. It is the nature of the money in itself, but we did a day for Wandsworth at way in which we can spread that practice across all the Southside Shopping Centre when it opened, sports— which is a new scheme in the middle of Wandsworth, and we did one there and the Southside was so V Q26 Michael Fabricant: It is happening well though impressed that they o ered £5,000 towards coaching because first of all you have got the backing of the every Saturday and we were not even out there Wimbledon Club itself and also you have got two co- hustling for anyone to help. We just did a day in the operative councils, Merton and Wandsworth, and I community where the kids came in, the parents were am just curious to see whether that nexus can be playing, it was a really nice day, and the guy from the repeated in other parts of the country and do you Southside came down, loved it and there was £5,000 every Saturday, he said, for free coaching. It is not know if it is being repeated in other parts of the Y country? di cult because people want to be involved in good, Mr Bloxham: The big hit we have is that we are the healthy things with kids getting better experiences, All England Club, so we walk in and we explain that so obviously we are in that unique position. Some it is where Tim comes from and Venus and Serena. things need to come from funding from governing Firstly, they ask me, “Do they play for Chelsea?” bodies, but also businesses are just waiting to be and when I obviously say, “No, they don’t play for involved with good schemes that are making kids Chelsea”, they begin to get an idea of where we are healthier and better people, so it is a really good time from. I have only been the head coach at the All where I think people are really keen to be involved England Club for three years. Now, we are actually in these sort of ideas. sitting here talking today about WJTIs and obviously it does have an impact. We fit in with the Q28 Mr Hawkins: Margaret, you and I of course have LTA criteria of mini tennis development and we are been involved in this issue of bureaucracy, particularly working with them and various ideas, but I think for the smaller sports clubs and the sports I know most certainly it is not that diYcult to set up, and I do about, cricket, rugby, football and swimming. The think that almost in whatever sport we put in our smaller clubs have suVered, as you mentioned earlier, little model, it would work. The Club has a big name particularly by the bureaucracy, and I thought what obviously, but what we are trying to do is to perform Mr Stringer was saying about the elderly lady umpire so well within our own area that it has a ripple eVect, not wanting to carry on because she had to go through pushing out into the other counties, the other a CRB check just reinforced the things that you and I boroughs nationally, whatever. Obviously we have raised with government ministers some time ago. only been going for three years at this full-time and However, can I make a positive suggestion for all of as we are moving along, we are finding that it has a you perhaps to work together on, which is that if you big impact and we can obviously accommodate and actually took an individual club, whether Sheppey help work wherever. We did a day with the RFU the Rugby Club or anywhere in the country, and just piled 3049213001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 21

5 April 2005 Prof Margaret Talbot OBE,Mr Charles Stringer,Ms Linda Neal,M r Dan Bloxham and Mr Peter Baveystock up all the forms that volunteers in their own time have Q29 Mr Hawkins: That example reinforces the point to fill in and got the media to take pictures of them, that many of us in Parliament who are keen on sport that might make the point and follow up some of the have been trying to work on with you in the CCPR and lobbying. Do you think that is something that we many other organisations to try and ensure that this could do? regulatory compliance issue is looked at by all Prof Talbot: I certainly think it is something we could government departments because we do tend to gold- do to make the point. I think the other issue is this plate things and apply them to sport completely protection of volunteers and their clubs from inappropriately. Now, one of the other things I just unnecessary implementation of regulation and I have wanted to raise quickly was that some of the national said in our submission that we have had to do a media in connection with this inquiry today have Professor Moody, if you like, if you are a Harry Potter raised the issue of funding per head as compared with fan, and eternal vigilance is what we are about. We other European countries. I still feel that we are not have to look across so many government departments doing enough when there are so many health and to make sure that inappropriate legislation or obesity issues where we know that sport can help and regulation is not applied to sport and recreation. I we also know that sport is a tremendously positive suppose the most positive example of that, because we thing in dealing with law and order issues, getting kids have just won through, is the Working at Height oV the streets and into something constructive and Directive. It is easy to blame EU regulation, but it is a keeping them away from drugs. Do you agree with me perfectly proper regulation to protect the construction that we actually, all of us in public life who are industry, window cleaners and so on, but it should not interested in sport, need to keep the pressure up to try be applied to climbing and caving and it has taken a year’s dedicated technical and careful work from a and get up with the best in Europe in terms of funding committee of volunteers who would much rather have per head on children’s sport? spent their time working to deliver to young people in Prof Talbot: Yes, I totally agree with that. It is £21 a the voluntary sector instead of that. We have now head in this country and that is from all sources, managed to persuade the Health and Safety Executive including local authorities, compared with £30 in that this should not be applied to sport and recreation Germany, £51 in Australia, £76 in Canada and £112 in and ministerial support has been absolutely essential in France. Those are not very good gearing ratios related this with Jane Kennedy MP, but the point is that we to other countries and I do not think we should be were alone across the EU in having our national proud of that. agency wanting to do this. Our colleagues right across Chairman: Thank you very, very much indeed. We are the EU thought it was hilarious. most grateful to you for coming along.

Supplementary memorandum submitted by CCPR

Question 48 (Chris Bryant) Girls’ and women’s participation in sport and recreation has risen slowly during the last 15 years, and the gap between their and boys’ and men’s participation has narrowed slightly. The diVerence is small during the primary school years, but with considerable evidence that girls depend more than boys do on their school physical education programmes for learning the skills and confidence they need for participation. The gap then increases during adolescence and after leaving school, EXCEPT among young women attending full- time higher education: the significance of length of education for women’s later participation is well known and the percentage rise in women aged 18! at university seems to be associated with a rise in their participation post-university. The participation gap between them and women leaving school at 16 to go into work is therefore increasing. Generally speaking, less women participate in sport than men, across a smaller range of activities and less often. The changes associated with family responsibilities happen earlier and more suddenly for women than men, indicating that these responsibilities are not shred equally between the sexes. This pattern has endured over the last three decades, but the opportunities associated with participation in higher and further education; and the possibility of better and more targeted programmes for young women in the community after leaving school, require a more strategic approach. (See CCPR Memorandum to the Select Committee Inquiry, p Ev 1.) While there have been noticeable rises in participation by girls and women in indoor sports and some outdoor sports, it is not possible to discern whether this has accounted for the decline in some other outdoor sports. International evidence (Women’s Sports Foundation USA) indicates that young women who take part in sport are half as likely as their non-active peers to take part in early sexual activity or to become pregnant while teenagers—an interesting finding which needs to be explored here in the UK, whose teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. 13 April 2005 3049212007 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 22 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Rugby Football Union 1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the RFU is ideally positioned to help achieve Government’s objectives for sport, through a new long-term partnership with Government. This paper argues the case for increased investment in rugby union but we believe that the case may be equally strong for other sports, especially the major spectator sports. Over recent years there has been an increasing and welcome realisation by Government both that sport in of itself is a powerful force for good (“sport for sport’s sake”) and that sport also can be an important tool to deliver Government policy objectives, especially health policy. The RFU firmly believes that we can help deliver Government’s vision of a mass participation culture if further public investment is forthcoming; this report sets out a blueprint of how a new partnership between the RFU and Government could achieve this.

1.2 Government’s policy aims for sport The current Government has demonstrated that it clearly recognises the importance of sport and there appears to be an emerging commitment to play a role in improving both grassroots participation rates and elite success. Sports policy has over recent years evolved considerably. Game Plan, Government’s key sport strategy document, sets an exceptionally demanding target for increased participation rates but lacks detailed delivery strategies and funding commitments. Government’s twin aims for sport (increase in grassroots participation and elite success) exactly mirror the strategic objectives and organisational structures of the RFU. Game Plan and other policy documents contain concrete links of the positive impact of sport on health and strong, though less quantifiable, evidence of sports’ benefit to crime, education and social inclusion issues. The investment case for Government is based primarily on increased grassroots participation, rather than funding elite success. Government’s stated policy is to devolve authority for spending to professional, competent, modernised NGBs but this has not yet become a reality.

1.3 The case for increasing Government investment in sport Numerous speeches by Ministers (and the Prime Minister) would appear to indicate a growing realisation on the part of this Government of the importance of sport. Participation in sport is a good thing in itself (sport for sport’s sake). Sport helps to deliver Government’s wider policy agenda (health, education, anti-crime, social inclusion etc.). Physical inactivity is estimated to cost the economy £2 billion per annum whilst each 10% increase in physical activity saves the Exchequer an estimated £500 million. In net terms Government takes about £5 billion per annum from sport. Sport NGBs in the UK are taxed under a system that is illogical, unfair and contrary to Government policy. All available evidence (accepting the significant diYculties inherent in the analysis) appears to suggest that sport in England is under-funded relative to other countries and other worthy causes under the DCMS umbrella. Sport lacks the funding necessary to deliver its full potential benefit to the nation and the Exchequer.

1.4 The case for further investment in rugby union Rugby union is one of the highest profile sports on most measures of public interest in sport. Rugby union has a broad base of several hundred thousand participants attached to a network of almost 2,000 clubs. Over 36,000 volunteers are estimated to be working in our sport giving a total of 4.9m free hours to sport in their community. This volunteer network is a major asset capable of leverage through further investment. The RFU has a fundamental commitment to increasing grass-roots participation, evidenced in the Strategic Plan and an annual investment of £20 million into the community game. 3049212007 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 23

The RFU has a well-resourced, expertly-staVed development infrastructure of more than 100 employees capable of delivering results quickly, eVectively and eYciently. The RFU is managed according to relevant PLC standards with a modernised, eVective and professionally-staVed management structure. The RFU has the processes and structures in place to handle funds and deliver results, a prerequisite of Government’s stated objective of devolving greater power of spending to modernised NGBs. The RFU clearly understands best the needs of the sport of rugby union and this fits in with Government’s stated aim of becoming a purchaser rather than a deliverer of services in this area.

1.5 Developing a new partnership between the RFU and Government The RFU and Government should form a new partnership to ensure that rugby union contributes to the Game Plan vision of a mass participation culture and the associated health and social inclusion benefits. The partnership model should deliver the stated Government policy of devolved powers of spending to NGBs with Government as a purchaser of services and the NGBs as delivery agents. The partnership should be based around mutually agreed long-term strategic plans and more frequent high-level dialogue between Government, the sports agencies and the RFU. The concept of one stop-shop funding plans, currently being implemented by Sport England in their Whole Sports Plan approach, should be extended across all sport funding as far as possible. The RFU estimates that funding of c. £400 million in total over 10 years will be required to have a realistic chance of significantly increasing participation Government should make NGBs tax exempt to stop the inequitable and anomalous system whereby NGBs are eVectively taxed on their investment in grassroots sport and national stadia.

2. Background The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the Rugby Football Union is ideally positioned to help achieve Government’s objectives for sport, through a new long-term partnership with Government. This paper argues the case for increased investment in rugby union but we believe that the case may be equally strong for other sports, especially the major spectator sports. Rugby union is, with cricket, soccer and tennis, one of the four major spectator sports in England. The key strengths of these sports include participation numbers, spectator numbers, the number of member clubs, revenues, the resources available to the sports’ National Governing Bodies (NGBs), their history and tradition within British culture and the public interest and media profile of the sports. Although this paper contains the views of the RFU only, at times we draw on data and case studies from other sports as we believe that the key issues presented in this paper apply across many sports. Over recent years there has been an increasing and welcome realisation by Government both that sport of itself is a powerful force for good (“sport for sport’s sake”) and that sport also can be an important tool to deliver Government policy objectives, especially in health and social policy. The RFU also welcomes the position adopted by Government in taking a long-term view regarding the achievement of the full benefits of sports—for example Game Plan sets objectives over a 20-year period. We believe that the RFU can contribute to delivering Government’s vision, articulated in Game Plan, of a mass participation culture if further public investment in grassroots rugby is forthcoming. This paper contains the arguments for increased Government investment in grassroots sport in general and in rugby union, as one of the major sports, in particular. We believe that investment through, and planned in conjunction with, the NGBs will be the most eVective and eYcient funding strategy for Government to achieve its primary aim of increasing participation in sport. It is important to stress that RFU is not seeking to achieve special treatment regarding Government funding for sport to the exclusion or detriment of other sports. Rather, we hope that a successful partnership of the RFU with Government will provide a template for the Government to follow with other sports. Government has rightly stressed, however, that in return for increased investment in sports, particularly via NGBs, there need to be measurable benefits delivered towards Government policy goals. The RFU acknowledges and agrees with the Government view that sports organisations, notably NGBs, must prove their ability to deliver agreed objectives. The RFU is committed to improving our own performance which, in turn, will help deliver Government objectives. Equally, Government must play its part by continuing to develop a more co-ordinated approach to sport, simplifying funding processes and routes and, most importantly, increasing the absolute level of funding to sport10 by tax exemption and a quantum increase in the level of direct funding.

10 See Game Plan p 176 (para 7.77) regarding the need to fund NGBs via a one stop plan method. Sport England is currently in the process of finalising a one stop plan approach for a priority group of 20–30 sports. 3049212007 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 24 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

3. The Government’s Policy Aims for Sport

3.1 Introduction It is important to outline and understand Government policy on sport, as it provides the reference point for the arguments set out in this paper. In addition, many of the elements of the proposed new partnership between the RFU and Government respond directly to recent Government policy announcements and initiatives. This section provides a brief chronological review of the development of current Government’s sport policy, the RFU’s overall views on these policies, together with an examination of Government’s position on the relationship between elite and grass roots sport.

3.2 The Development of Sport Policy at Government Level—Key Policy Documents Government sports policy has developed greatly since this Government came to power in 1997. We readily acknowledge that this administration has done considerably more for sport than its predecessors, the very welcome introduction of Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) and associated rate relief being a good example of this. In addition, we recognise that Sport England has recently undergone radical reform to enable it to play a role in the future completely diVerent to that it has traditionally performed. Since the 1997 election, Government has published a series of documents containing the development of its sport policy. These documents also outline an evolving delivery strategy for that policy in England and include details of the roles that Government would like the sports and NGBs to play. In particular, successive documents have recognised the pivotal role that NGBs play in their sports and have outlined the steps that need to be taken by NGBs to access devolved funding from Government. Five principal documents have been released, as detailed in the table below. A brief summary of the key issues arising from each document follows.

Table 1: Principal Sports Policy Documents released by Government

Date Title July 1999 Policy Action Team 10: The Contribution that Arts and Sport Can Make April 2000 A Sporting Future for All December 2000 Report of the Sport Strategy Implementation Group March 2001 A Sporting Future for All: The Government’s Plan for Sport December 2002 Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government’s Sport and Physical Activity Objectives

Source: Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis

3.2.1 Policy Action Team 10 Report: The Contribution that Arts and Sport Can Make The Policy Action Team (PAT 10) report from 1999 was commissioned by the Cabinet OYce’s Social Exclusion Unit. As part of a far-reaching examination of the issue of social exclusion, the report examined the contribution that sport and the arts can make to neighbourhood renewal. The report recognised that a significant contribution can be made and that this has, in the past, been underestimated: “Participation in [the arts and] sport has a beneficial social impact. [Arts and] sport are inclusive and can contribute to neighbourhood renewal. They can build confidence and encourage strong community groups. However, these benefits are often overlooked by some of the providers of [arts and] sport facilities and programmes and by those involved in area regeneration programmes”11 The report stated that “ample evidence” existed that sport could contribute to solving problems associated with crime, health, employment and education. Crucially, the report recognised the value of sport: “. . . not only as competitive activity but organised recreation and physical activity”. PAT 10 recognised that sport bodies had traditionally regarded community development work as an “add on” to their “real” work and a lesser form of activity, while other bodies involved in regeneration regarded [arts and] sport as peripheral. The report noted a lack of available information on the regenerative aspects of [arts and] sports community development projects and recommended that more research be done to clarify these. That said, PAT 10 showed that Government was increasingly acknowledging the potential of sport to meet important policy goals.

11 PAT 10 Report, 1999, p 5. 3049212007 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 25

3.2.2 A Sporting Future for All The April 2000 sport policy document, “A Sporting Future for All”, presented the Government’s proposals for developing sport. The report detailed the Government’s policies for sport and set out an outline action plan of how the strategy would be developed. In particular, A Sporting Future for All clarified the Government’s three primary policy aims for sport: — Increasing participation by young people; — Lifelong participation; and — Talent development. The matrix below contains extracts from the report under each of these topics.

A Sporting Future for All: Government’s primary policy aims

“Physical education and sport are a fundamental part of the education of all young people. They should have an opportunity to take part in a range of sporting activities. Participation is important in itself, but it can also help to develop important values like discipline, teamwork, creativity and responsibility. England’s schools have a proud tradition of providing high quality physical Increasing participation by education and sport. Indeed many of our best schools still have excellent young people provision, a feature highly valued by schools and parents. However, in too many schools physical education and sport have declined. There has been a loss of playing fields and a decline in after school sport and competition. We must begin to turn this round. We need to find a new approach that will create sustainable, long-term change and that supports teachers, parents and young people. Our ambition must be to raise the standards of physical education and school sport in all schools to match those of the best.” “We want to reduce, over the next ten years, the unfairness in access to sport. To achieve this goal, we will invest in grass roots facilities and make Lifelong participation sure that everyone involved in sport makes a concerted eVort to give opportunities to those currently excluded.” “We need to learn the lessons of our competitor nations and have the most Talent development professional system for talent development and support excellence”

The report also noted that a key element of the talent development process is to widen the base of participation. Encouraging more people to play, and providing opportunities for access to facilities, will deliver higher participation—and the increase in participation provides to existing talent development mechanisms a larger pool from which to develop those with potential to progress to higher levels.

The Concept of the New Partnership with NGBs A Sporting Future for All also introduced the important new concept of Government using the existing sport NGB structure to assist with implementation of policy. The report proposed a new partnership between Government and the NGBs to deliver the strategy: “We want to use these new partnerships to modernise and professionalise the way sport is run. We will only devolve funding decisions where governing bodies: — have a clear strategy for participation and excellence; and — commit themselves to putting social inclusion and fairness at the heart of everything they do. This is a radical change in the relationship between Government and governing bodies. In return for extra control over the allocation of public funds, we would expect the national governing bodies to ensure they adopt inclusive policies to expand the pool of talent from which they draw their top competitors.”12 Furthermore, “A Sporting Future for All” detailed specific areas in which NGBs would have to demonstrate progression: “They (NGBs) will be expected to meet challenging targets in these areas: — developing sport in school and the community, especially in areas of deprivation; — providing appropriately trained coaches to support teachers in primary and secondary schools; — improving the opportunities for ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and for girls and women to participate, lead, coach and oYciate;

12 A Sporting Future for All, 2000, p. 20. 3049212008 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 26 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— having strong talent development plans to enable those with the wish and ability to reach the top levels of competition to do so; and — having robust management, planning and monitoring of all their activities. This will mean sports bodies operate in a new environment. They will have to improve administration to be sure of meeting agreed targets, whilst at the same time becoming more accountable to lottery players, taxpayers and the public at large.”13 The message from “A Sporting Future for All” to NGBs was clear—a challenge to them to modernise and, with their member clubs, to deliver more towards the mainstream Government agenda in key priority areas. In return, Government would provide funding and use the NGBs as a delivery agent: “The principle is simple. Sports which can demonstrate that they are delivering these targets—and have a good strategy for the development of their sport from its very foundations to the highest level— will gain more responsibility.”14

As an example of the proposed new partnership between Government and NGBs to increase investment in grassroots, NGBs were requested to invest at least 5% of their broadcasting revenues in grassroots facilities. The RFU’s investment in grassroots rugby is in excess of 100% of our broadcasting revenues. The Government placed additional emphasis on education as part of the strategy, and announced that steps would be taken to prevent the sale of playing fields, provide improved facilities in schools and develop linkages between schools and local clubs to prevent the drop oV in participation after full time education. Facilities in schools were to be encouraged to open outside school hours as community sports centres.

3.2.3 A Sporting Future for All: Government’s plan for sport

December 2000 saw the release of an action plan report from the Sport Strategy Implementation Group. The group was drawn from a combination of National Governing Bodies, Local Education Authorities and Local Authorities, and was tasked with putting the policy recommendations in ‘A Sporting Future for All’ into practice. In addition to a large number of detailed recommendations, the group made further comments on how the new partnership between Government and Sport England and NGBs could be developed to devolve power to appropriate NGBs: “Through piloting, a system will be developed to delegate funding powers to NGBs, this will give them greater control over their own plans and resources. Alongside this UK Sport will work with NGBs to modernise structures and systems in a number of sports to enable them to develop more eVective and eYcient management structures and systems.”15

Action points related to the plan to devolve powers to NGBs included: — A pilot programme to be established to devolve funding to at least six NGBs; — NGB plans to be subject to scrutiny and monitoring but NGBs need to be allowed to reallocate funding as circumstances dictate; — Consideration to be given to greater consultation with NGBs concerning the delegation of capital community programmes to selected NGBs in due course16; and — The fact that changes will require a major cultural shift and appropriate training provided for both NGBs and Sports Council at all levels. Endorsing the Implementation Group’s report, and noting that many of the recommendations had already been implemented, A Sporting Future for All: The Government’s Plan for Sport further underlined the commitment to provide funding to NGBs. However, the report was clear that a prerequisite of funding was the development and promotion of equity17 and inclusion action plans, and for all funded projects to evaluate their impact on inclusion and equity. The report also recognised the value of coaches, and established a Coaching Task Force to review the role of the National Coaching Foundation, conduct an independent benchmarking exercise on coach education and consider the feasibility of an investment programme to create 3,000 full-time paid coaching posts by 2005.

13 A Sporting Future for All, 2000, p. 20. 14 A Sporting Future for All, 2000, p. 20. 15 A Sporting Future for All: Action Plan, 2000. 16 The Community Club Development Programme (CCDP) has now been introduced, and welcomed by NGBs, to achieve this. 17 Equity has been defined as recognition of, and help in over-coming, barriers faced by people involved, or wanting to be involved, in sport—so increasing accessibility and opportunities. 3049212008 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 27

3.2.4 Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives In December 2002, the Government’s Strategy Unit (based in the Cabinet OYce) was asked to consider the Government’s approach to sport and to challenge thinking and set clear priorities. The report set a challenging long-term vision for sport and physical activity in the timeframe from the present day to 2020: “To increase significantly levels of sport and physical activity, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups; and achieve sustained levels of success in international competition”18 Game Plan proposed a target of 70% of people to be “reasonably” active (doing 30 minutes’ meaningful exercise or sport five times a week) by 2020. The report noted the diVerence between sport and physical activity, the definition of the latter being taken to include less strenuous activities such as digging the garden or washing a car. Nevertheless, this is an exceptionally demanding and ambitious progression from current participation trends, requiring a huge increase in resources to deliver it. Game Plan also commented further on the benefits of sporting activity to the individual. Following a thorough analysis of available academic research, Game Plan concluded that the linkage between sport and health is strong and well founded. There were also powerful anecdotal and inductive reasons to suggest that sport could have an impact in other areas, notably the social exclusion issues of crime, education and employment. As evidence of the impact in these areas was less available, Game Plan recommended that more work be undertaken to investigate the linkages.

3.3 The RFU’s response to key policy documents This paper is, in part, a response to Game Plan and earlier documents. We agree with much of the detail in these documents. Our overall view is that, although Government has set itself the laudable objective of achieving a very significant increase in mass participation levels, Game Plan contains little detail on how this exceptionally demanding target will be delivered nor details of the investment required to fund the delivery; neither were the major sports actively involved as partners in the process. The RFU is, nevertheless, ready to assist Government in achieving its objectives and believe that we have met the Government’s key requirements of a modernised NGB partner. We now feel that a closer and more developed partnership with Government is necessary to ensure eVective delivery of increased grassroots participation in our sport, with the consequent benefits.

3.4 Government Policy: The relationship between elite and grassroots development In the context of this paper, it is important to distinguish between Government’s objectives for elite sport on the one hand and grassroots sport on the other. The focus of this paper is on grassroots sports and how the RFU can contribute to the achievement of a mass participation culture envisaged by Game Plan.

3.4.1 Elite development Of the three priorities in A Sporting Future for All, the aim of developing successful elite athletes has partly been addressed by the World Class programme. UK Sport was set up as an agency to deliver funding to NGBs, supported by the Home Country Sports Councils, to assist them in developing elite athletes to compete at the highest level. The World Class programme aims to help NGBs develop an integrated, comprehensive system to identify and support talented athletes, in order to achieve consistent success in significant international competitions. Funding is generated from the proceeds of the National Lottery and is distributed by the four Home Country Sports Councils. The current programmes include World Class Performance, World Class Potential, World Class Start, Commonwealth Games and Events. The programme was an early illustration of the new partnership between Government and sport, with a Plan being developed by NGBs, outlining the use of funding and the progression in terms of ‘medals’ which the Government would expect to see in return. Funding for the NGBs was attached to the programme, which the NGBs were able to use independently—with UK Sport monitoring progress towards the agreed goals on an annual basis. The programme has in the main been a success; progress towards goals has been made and the NGBs have been seen to be able to manage public funding eYciently and eVectively. World Class is a programme that NGBs are comfortable with, and they see this to some extent as a blueprint for their new relationship with the Government on developing grassroots participation.

18 Game Plan, 2002. 3049212008 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 28 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

3.4.2 Grass roots development Sports policy is about far more than elite development, as noted in A Sporting Future for All. For every Jonny Wilkinson, Martin Johnson or Lawrence Dallaglio there are many hundreds of thousands of individuals who play sport purely for the enjoyment of it, be it at a member club or on a local playing field on a Sunday morning. Ability is not the primary criterion, it is the playing that counts—and that playing delivers benefits to the public purse through its contribution to good health and good citizenship within society. These individuals will never rise to play at the highest levels, but increasing participation in grassroots sports will deliver tangible benefits to the Government in terms of contribution to social policy objectives. These benefits are outlined in more detail in section 4.3 and 4.4. The key question to be addressed by this paper is how Government can best meet its stated policy aims for sport participation. As stated, Game Plan clarified the Government’s objective as achieving 70% of individuals taking part in meaningful exercise activity at least five times a week by 2020. With current participation rates running at around 32% this is an exceptionally demanding target. We believe that one of the most eVective strategies for Government to adopt would be to focus significant new investment in the major spectator sports in order to leverage their popularity, participant base and delivery infrastructures.

3.5 Summary Government’s current attitude to sport, as evidenced in the major policy documents detailed above, can be summarised as follows: — The current Government has demonstrated that it clearly recognises the importance of sport and there appears to be an emerging commitment to play a role in improving both grassroots participation rates and elite success. — Sports policy has over recent years evolved considerably (CASCs, WCPP, CCDP etc). Game Plan sets an exceptionally demanding target for increased participation rates but lacks detailed delivery strategies and funding commitments. — Government’s twin aims for sport (increase in grassroots participation and elite success) exactly mirror the strategic objectives and organisational structures of the RFU. — Game Plan and other policy documents contain concrete links of the positive impact of sport on health and strong, though less quantifiable, evidence of sports’ benefit to crime, education and social inclusion issues. — The investment case for Government is based primarily on increased grassroots participation, rather than funding elite success. — Government’s stated policy is to devolve authority for spending to professional, competent, modernised NGBs but this has not yet become a reality.

4. The Case for Increasing Government Investment in Sport

4.1 Overview of the case for sport This section explains why we believe that the level of Government investment in sport as a whole must be significantly increased, if there is to be a realistic chance of meeting the Game Plan participation target. Section 4.2 highlights how sport is intrinsically a worthwhile activity. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 show that sport delivers progress towards Government policy objectives, providing a tangible “return on investment” for Government. Sections 4.5 to 4.8 examine the economics of the sport industry and Government and Lottery funding thereof. Finally, Sections 4.9 and 4.10 discuss the finances of professional sport clubs and of the major sports NGBs. Government clearly acknowledges the premise of a strong case for investment in sports, as outlined by Tessa Jowell, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State, for example: “We care about sport for three very good reasons: — We care because taking part in sport is a fulfilling end to itself. We care passionately about giving everyone the opportunity to enrich their lives with the pleasure that sport can bring, regardless of their income or their social circumstances — We care because sport can bring enormous health benefits, in a society that is increasingly unfit and overweight . . .; and — We care because sport can deliver so much of our agenda in terms of education, social inclusion and building a sense of solidarity in our communities.”19

19 Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State For Culture, Media And Sport, 14 July 2003, Sport Summit Speech. 3049212009 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 29

4.2 Participation in sport is a good thing in itself—“sport for sport’s sake” Government has categorically accepted that sport is good in itself, as demonstrated by the above statement from Tessa Jowell: “We care (about sport) because taking part in sport is a fulfilling end to itself”20 It is universally recognised that participation in sport improves a host of important personal and social skills. At younger ages, sport helps the individual to develop activity-based skills, such as improved balance and co-ordination, which can then be applied to other environments. People of all ages also benefit from the eVects of being involved in a team environment. It helps people to understand the principle of working toward common goals and to respect and value the contribution of others. It develops key life skills such as leadership, deference, communication, self-esteem and responsibility. In a team environment the development of positive peer pressure also can aVect individuals’ attitudes. Being part of a team brings with it the self-discipline arising from the responsibility to attend training sessions or matches, while peers can also influence individuals’ behaviour. Team sports develop the ability to trust and respect others in a competitive environment, and to appreciate the role of other team members while making new social contacts and friends. In such sports, leadership and communication skills are also developed. Winning and losing at sport can help to improve citizenship skills; developing the desire to win, and the ability to accept defeat are crucial to evolving life skills. Sport can also impact on mental well being and mental acuity. Sport provides people with the opportunity to “express their physicality” which often leads to increased personal satisfaction for a number of reasons. Game Plan provides a comprehensive and compelling explanation of these benefits

4.3 Sport delivers health benefits There is now universal and unequivocal agreement that participation in sport leads to quantifiable health benefits, as highlighted by the quotation below. “The health benefits of sport and physical activity should not be underestimated. There is clear evidence to show that physically inactive people have about double the risk of coronary heart disease. The incidence of obesity, colon cancer, type II diabetes, hypertension and mental health problems is also increased by inactivity.”21 Game Plan examined a range of international medical research showing that regular physical activity yields physical and social benefits, including reducing the risk of obesity, cardiovascular diseases, some forms of cancer, strokes, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Chart 1 below illustrates the growing problem of obesity.

Chart 1: Obesity in the UK, 1993–2001

25

20

15

10

Men Women

5 Proportion of Population with Body Mass Index Over 30 Over Index Mass Body with Population of Proportion

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Source: Department for Health

In England the proportion of the population classified as obese (defined as having a Body Mass Index over 30) reached 24% of women and 21% of men in 2001. The level of obesity has increased threefold in the last 20 years (in 1980 there were only 8% of women and 6% of men classified as obese). In a foreword to a recent Adam Smith Institute publication, Richard Caborn, Minister for Sport, outlined the costs of obesity to the nation. The figures are staggering.

20 Tessa Jowell, Secretary Of State For Culture, Media And Sport, 14 July 2003, Sport Summit Speech. 21 Hazel Blears, CCPR National Conference, May 2003. 3049212009 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 30 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

“Obesity costs the UK economy £2 billion each year, and the NHS £500 million. Instances of diabetes in young children have grown alarmingly and promise to store up problems for generations to come. Sport and exercise can help reverse these trends”22 These costs, of course, are purely economic costs. The social and human costs of increased obesity are also notable, albeit not easily quantifiable. Game Plan examined the costs of physical inactivity to England and estimated the savings that a moderate increase in participation would deliver. Again the figures themselves are significant. The report categorises the costs in three areas: — costs to the NHS—in terms of reduced numbers of people falling ill and needing to see a doctor and/or seek public healthcare; — costs due to sickness absence from employment; and — costs of premature death. The results are shown in the table below. They suggest that the cost of physical inactivity to England is almost £2 billion per annum. Put into perspective, this annual cost is the total projected cost to the public purse of delivering the 2012 Olympic Games to London.

Table 2: The annual cost of physical inactivity in England

Area Estimated Savings (£m) Direct health care costs of physical inactivity 325 Earnings lost due to sickness absence 785 Earnings lost due to premature mortality 780 Total direct and indirect savings 1,890

Source: Game Plan, 2002, Figure 2.4 The model also suggested that a 10% increase in activity would deliver benefits totalling £500 million per year. Clearly it is in the Government’s best interest to invest in sport if even these relatively moderate increases in participation can deliver the suggested savings. There is a need for Government and sport to ensure that key decision-makers understand that long-term investment in sport is an important preventative measure. Investment in sport, leading to increased participation rates, will be self-financing through health care savings. We endorse this argument and, as will be shown later in the document, believe we are in an ideal position to help deliver the targeted participation increases, providing further Government investment is forthcoming.

4.4 Social inclusion benefits In addition to the clear health benefits, increased participation in sport also assists Government to achieve other key objectives which fall under the social inclusion agenda. The Government has defined social exclusion as: “A shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suVer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown.”23 Social exclusion is one of the major pressures on public spending, through the costs of both combating its eVects and seeking its prevention, including: — state benefits; — support services for those who are socially excluded; — health care; —eVects of crime and drug misuse; and — taxes that would have been received if socially excluded groups receiving state benefits were employed or in higher paid work. It has been acknowledged that reducing social exclusion produces real savings to Government, and as such has been a central pillar of Government policy since its election in 1997. Sport has begun to be used in practice to address the social exclusion agenda. It was Policy Action Team 10, under instruction from the Social Exclusion Unit, which set out the impact that sport can have. These views have been accepted at all levels of Government, including Tony Blair, Prime Minister, who said:

22 Foreword, “Sport, Active Recreation and Social Inclusion”, The Smith Institute, 2003. 23 Social Exclusion Unit: Preventing Social Exclusion. 3049212009 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 31

“It is important that we give this encouragement to sport, not only for its own sake but because, as many people now recognise, it is one of the best anti-crime policies that we could have. It is also as good a health and education policy as any other.”24

4.4.1 Combating crime and anti-social behaviour Crime is perhaps the most prominent outcome of social exclusion, and research has clearly illustrated the relationship between crime and areas of multiple social deprivation. Research commissioned by the Home OYce estimated the total cost of crime to the UK economy at £60 billion per annum. The report also includes the estimated cost of specific crimes (see Appendix 3, Table A), for example, each robbery costs almost £5,000. In his 2003 address to the DCMS Sport Summit, Richard Caborn outlined the costs to the public purse of dealing with the perpetrators of criminal activities. He stated the cost of youth crime alone to be around £1 billion per annum. This would appear to be a significant underestimate representing, as it does, less than 2% of the estimated annual cost of crime in the UK. Some of the costs have been categorised—for example, secure accommodation for a single youth oVender costs £122,000 per annum, and putting a youth through a young oVenders’ programme costs £52,000. Academics have attempted to estimate the cost of various aspects of crime and suggest the value of “saving” a young person from a life of crime can be more than £1 million. The breakdown of this is shown in Appendix 3, Table B. Clearly, policy makers have an incentive to intervene to reduce such costs and need to understand the cost-benefit analysis of interventions. Although the costs of interventions are often available, the benefits are more diYcult to quantify, primarily due to diYculties in apportioning any reduction in crime to specific initiatives. Initiatives aimed specifically at preventing crime are often only one of a number of multiple interventions targeted at addressing the wider social inclusion issue. Sport has been used in high crime areas as a diversionary activity. Intuitively, the provision of diversionary activities should have an impact on crime rates—and this is supported by specific examples. — A partnership between Charlton Athletic and Railtrack, delivering educational sessions in schools and after school coaching sessions in prime crime times, led to a 25% drop in rail related vandalism. — Similarly the Positive Futures initiative of structured intervention involving sport participation and education to targeted youths in inner city areas cut crime rates by up to 77%. Sport’s key strength is that it generates huge passion and interest in people, and this can lead to long- term commitment and a regular routine. NGBs and their member clubs represent an existing permanent infrastructure that can play a crucial role in helping to continue the delivery of participation opportunities. The key barrier is funding. To make this step change, longer term anti-crime interventions via additional investment into sports, over a longer timeframe, is required.

4.4.2 Education Again, Government has stated the importance of sport in education: “We know that motivating children to learn through sport works”25 Conversely, lack of, or exclusion from, education is one of the main factors causing social exclusion. For example, the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit stated: “People who have problems at school are more likely to become socially excluded. For example: — A Centrepoint study found that over three quarters of homeless teenagers were either long term non- attendees, or had been excluded from school; — In a survey of teenage mothers in South London, nearly 40% had left school with no qualifications, compared with a national average of 6%; and — Over 60% of prisoners had been excluded from school at some point, compared to less than 0.2% of the wider population. The national prison survey found that 30% of prisoners said they played truant after age 11, compared with 3% of the general population.”26 Educational initiatives which are delivered in a sporting environment, or which use sport as an example, often produce better results than those that are delivered in a traditional setting. Football’s Playing for Success and cricket’s Howzat! initiatives are clear examples of how sport is a powerful vehicle for delivering improvements in both basic education and in helping “hard to reach” pupils at risk of failing in education.

24 Tony Blair, House of Commons, March 2002. 25 Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education, 30 April 2003. 26 Social Exclusion Unit: Preventing Social Exclusion, March 2001, p 12, para 1.10. 3049212010 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 32 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

4.4.3 Anti-racism Sport can be a powerful tool to promote social/community cohesion and to break down barriers within society. In particular, sport has been used to good eVect as a vehicle for delivering anti-racism interventions. For example, there is a specific anti-racism campaign in football, Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, commonly known as “Kick it Out”, which The Commission for Racial Equality and the Professional Footballers’ Association started in 1993. The campaign is supported by the FA Premier League, all the game’s governing bodies, supporters’ organisations and local authorities, and works to challenge racism at all levels of the game. The ECB has introduced an equivalent comprehensive anti-racism campaign entitled “Clean Bowl Racism”. As stated earlier, the key issue with interventions of this type is that they should be long-term, if lasting benefits are to be made. This, of course, requires a similarly long-term approach to funding.

4.5 Sport is a major industry Sport is now a major industry. In recent years, the increased popularity of leisure activities and of sport as a prime leisure attraction, whether participating or watching, has resulted in significant growth in employment and output. The most recent examination of the size of the sports industry was carried out by Cambridge Econometrics27. The survey showed that around 2% of the total employment in England in 2,000–400,000 jobs—was directly related to sport. More people are now employed in sport than in agriculture (1.5% of total employment) or mechanical engineering (1.3% of employment), while the sector employs nearly as many people as Banking and Finance (2.5% of total employment).78 In 2000 it was estimated that sport related activity in England accounted for more than £9.8 billion in gross value added, about 1.5% of the total for England. Table 3 shows the split of this. Further details are available in Appendix 3, Tables C & D.

Table 3: Sport related output and employment in England, 2000

Sector Employment (’000) Value Added (£m) Commercial Sport 157 3,553 Commercial non-sport19 169 4,226 Voluntary Sector 38 1,215 Local Government 38 844 All sport related activities 402 9,838

Source: The Value of the Sports Economy in England, Cambridge Econometrics In addition to the “visible” contribution made by sport to the economy, it is important to emphasise the “hidden” value of the contribution of volunteers in sport. It is estimated that 26% of all volunteering is sports-related28, showing that sport is an extremely important source of community-based volunteering. The CCPR estimates that c.1.5 million volunteers assist with sporting activities29. Their contribution is estimated to be the equivalent of 108,000 full-time employees, and is valued at £1.5 billion per annum.

4.6 Government and Lottery funding for sport Given its increasing size, it is instructive to examine the contribution of public funding (ie funding from Government and Lottery sources) to the success of the sports’ industry. This section therefore analyses the level of central Government and Lottery funding for sport. The available evidence would suggest that central Government funding for sport is relatively low and that there is a strong case for increased investment. It contains an estimate of the scale of central Government and Lottery investment in sport (sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2), compares DCMS expenditure on sport to expenditure on other similar causes (section 4.6.3), demonstrates that it would appear that exchequer funding for sport is low compared with other major European countries (section 4.6.4) and examines the fragmented funding structures (section 4.6.5).

27 Cambridge Econometrics (on behalf of Sport England), “The Value of the Sports Economy in England”, 2003. 78 Commercial non-sport refers to economic activity/employment taking place as a result of sport, but within industries not categorised as sport—ie the eVects of sports in the wider economy. 28 The Value of Volunteers. G. Nicholls, University of SheYeld, 2003. 29 CCPR, Everybody Wins, 2002. 3049212010 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 33

4.6.1 The diYculty in estimating public funding of sport

Game Plan explains, and the RFU openly recognises, that there are inherent diYculties in measuring the total amount of public funding which is directed towards sport and that care must be taken in drawing conclusions from such analyses. As a result of Government’s acceptance that sport can impact on a number of policy areas, including health and social exclusion, funding to sport originates from a range of Government departments and delivery agents. The diYculty in accessing information on total sport spending was noted in the Cambridge Econometrics report for Sport England: “. . . an increasing number of Government schemes undertaken by non-sports departments, for example the Department for Education and Skills and the Home OYce, have included a sport related element. Through the course of the study considerable eVort was made to trace sport-related spending from the various Government programmes ...Itbecame apparent that the information required was not recorded in a way to identify whether or not it had a sport-related focus.”30 Equally, funding for specific initiatives in sport seeking to address social issues can be accessed through a wide variety of sources. At one Premiership football club, for example, the Football in the Community Scheme attracts funding from 13 diVerent public sources, including a range of domestic and European funds. Similar schemes in football and other sports are likely to attract external funding. The route to accessing these funds is not via the NGB of the sport, but through the development of local partnerships. Clubs may be able to access funding from a wide range of sources, including Health Action Zone, Community Safety and educational sources. This complex “web” of funding for sport, combined with the absence of ‘consolidated’ information recording the funding, means the analysis of funding can only be an estimate rather than a precise quantification. This does not, however, invalidate the overall conclusions that the analysis would suggest.

4.6.2 Estimated central Government and Lottery funding of sport

Despite the inherent diYculties, we have attempted—at a high level—to calculate the total investment in sport by central Government and the Lottery. We have done this using a “bottom-up” approach by identifying the sources of funding which were available to develop sport in 2002–03 in Appendix 3, Table E and using those to estimate total investment. This analysis is necessarily an underestimate of the total funding to sports as it does not include some funding sources (such as Health Action Zones or Single Regeneration Budget) which may be used by sports organisations or local agencies in sports participation related projects. The table below shows our estimate of central Government and Lottery actual and forecast funding for sport between 2001–02 and 2005–06.

Table 4: Estimated central Government and Lottery funding for sport, 2001–02—2005–06

Total 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Funding £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million

PE and Sport Programme 116 116 116 116 116 581 Sport England Lottery Funding 79 79 80 80 80 398 School Sport Co-ordinators 15 40 50 69 105 279 Specialist Sports Colleges N/a 24 26 39 50 139 Space for Sport and Arts 43 43 43 N/a N/a 130 World Class Performance Programme 25 25 25 25 25 125 Football Foundation Total Funding 21 19 22 N/a N/a 62 Community Club Development Programme N/a N/a 20 20 20 60 Activities for young people programme 13 13 13 N/a N/a 39 Support to Governing Bodies 6 6 6 6 6 30 Playing Fields & Community Green Spaces Scheme 7 7 7 7 N/a 28 Coaching Task Force N/a N/a 3 9 16 28

30 Cambridge Econometrics (on behalf of Sport England), “The Value of the Sports Economy in England”, 2003. 3049212011 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 34 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Total 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Funding £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million Out of School Hours Sport Activities 8 8 9 N/a N/a 25 UKSI Central Services Team 4 4 4 4 4 20 Other initiatives and programmes 12 23 35 24 24 118 Total 350 407 459 399 446 2,061

Source: Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis. Note: The table above may contain rounding diVerences. The table reveals the following key points: — Current central Government and Lottery investment is approximately £400 million per annum, and will continue at around this level each year until 2005–06; — In the five years for which we have been able to compile information, we estimate that nearly £2.1 billion will have been invested in sport through central Government sources; — The PE & Sport programme via NOF comprises the largest single element of sports investment. A total of £581 million (£750 million for the UK) is being invested between 2001–02 and 2005–06; — £398 million of additional investment is being provided through Sport England Lottery Aid; and — There are a wide range of programmes which contribute significantly to sports development However, only a small proportion of this funding is channelled directly into the grass-roots of sport through NGBs or their member clubs. Many Government funds, notably the PE and Sport, School Sport Co-ordinators and Specialist Sports colleges funding, are channelled through the existing public sector network, and funding is restricted to Local Authority or Local Education Authority facilities and programmes, and a relatively small amount of the overall funding is invested directly in sports organisations or sports clubs themselves. As an example of the allocation of funding, the table below shows recent levels of Lottery funding from Sport England on a sport by sport basis.

Table 5: Analysis of Sport England Lottery awards, 1998–99—2001–02

1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 4 year % of 4 £ million £ million £ million £ million total year total

Football 4.4 7.3 9.8 5.3 26.8 6 Rugby Union 2.6 1.4 2.1 0.9 7.0 2 Tennis 7.4 2.5 3.2 8.9 21.9 5 Cricket 4.4 2.7 6.4 2.7 16.2 4 Sub total 18.9 13.9 21.5 17.7 71.9 17 Other sports 53.4 129.5 99.0 61.4 343.5 83 Total Lottery Awards 72.2 143.4 120.5 79.2 415.4 100

Source: Sport England, Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis. Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. The table reveals that the four major spectator sports combined received 17% of Sport England Lottery funds. It is perhaps surprising—and inconsistent with an agenda of cost eVectively driving increased participation—that such a low percentage of the total has been allocated to the major sports.

4.6.3 DCMS funding to sports compared with other categories of expenditure

It is also instructive to compare funding to sport with funding to other, similar, causes. Due to the complex nature of funding sources, as explained above, it is impossible to gain figures for, and hence directly compare, total public funding for sports with total public funding for, as an example, the arts. However, one possible benchmark is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport budgets. The table below shows the breakdown of the DCMS budget between 1999–2000 to date, and planned budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06. 3049212011 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 35

Table 6: DCMS Budget, 1999–2000 to 2002–03 and Planned Budget, 2003–04 to 2005–06

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Total (Resource ! 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 (est.) (plan) (plan) (plan) Capital) Budget £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million £ million

Museums, Galleries and Libraries 422 433 495 518 566 580 601 Arts 230 239 254 297 337 367 412 Sport 53 53 68 127 140 123 126 Historical Buildings, monuments and sites 146 147 143 163 157 155 165 Broadcasting and Media 106 106 105 112 117 124 124 Other 141 163 177 182 177 193 199 Total* 1,098 1,141 1,242 1,399 1,494 1,542 1,627

Source: DCMS, Deloitte Sport analysis. *Note that total does not include Gambling and the National Lottery, which are included in DCMS’s documents. In 2001–02, only 5% of DCMS’s total expenditure was spent on sport, compared to 40% on Museums, Galleries and Libraries, 20% on the Arts, 11% on Heritage and 8% on Broadcasting and Media. A full breakdown of DCMS spending is shown in Appendix 3 Tables F, G & H. Clearly, funding for sport lags significantly behind funding for other “worthy causes”. This paper does not seek to devalue these other causes. However, it would appear, at least on the face of it, that, despite sport’s cultural significance and potential to meet Government objectives, Government does not value sport as highly as Museums, Galleries and Libraries, the Arts, Heritage or Broadcasting and Media.

4.6.4 Sport would appear to be under-funded in England compared with other major European countries

As Game Plan again makes clear, the funding arrangements and sources for sports in European countries are all diVerent. Moreover, Governments also classify and hold data on funding in diVerent ways. Accordingly, this makes comparison of funding levels across Europe diYcult. However, the CCPR has released some figures comparing Exchequer funding31. Chart 2 below plots Exchequer funding to sport per head of population for selected European countries.

Chart 2: European Exchequer Funding to Sport per Head of Population in 2000

£14

£12.11 £12

£10 £9.67 £9.00

£7.90 £8 £7.00

£6 £5.20

£4

£2.70 £2.83 £2.24

ExchequerFunding To Sport per Head of Population, 2000 £2 £1.59 £1.36 £1.00 £0.28 £0 Norway Finland Italy Germany Austria France Wales Scotland Northern Poland England Spain England Ireland 2003/04 (plan)

Source: Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR)32/DCMS.

31 The CCPR stresses the possible inaccuracies in the figures provided but state, “The information used was provided by the European national sports associations and as such represents the best information available.” http://www.ccpr.org.uk/ dyncat.cfm?catid%5354 32 HM Treasury, November 2001. 3049212012 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 36 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Chart 2 reveals the following points: — Exchequer funding in England in 2000 was approximately £1 per head of population. — This compares with £12.10 in Norway and £9.70 in Finland, the latter a country with high participation levels that Government cites as a benchmark example to aspire to. — Funding levels in other large Western European countries are also above those in England; in Germany the figure is £7.90, in France £5.20 and Italy £9.00. — Referring back to Table 6 shows DCMS planned expenditure in 2003–04 to reach £140 million. This would increase spending per head to £2.80, a healthy increase but still significantly short of comparable figures in Europe. It must be stressed that these comparative figures refer only to Exchequer funding. As shown previously, funding to sports in England comes from various sources other than the DCMS—for example other Government departments and via lottery funding. The extent to which this is also true for other European countries is not known. Notwithstanding this, on the basis of the Exchequer figures shown above, it appears that funding into English sport does currently lag significantly behind other developed European nations.

4.6.5 Funding for sport is fragmented and ineYcient

In addition to the scale of funding, a further problem with Government sports funding is its fragmented nature. The investment is largely uncoordinated across many diVerent Government departments and agencies.

The bulk of the funds is delivered regionally and locally via various funding agencies, such as the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), the Health Action Zones (HAZ) and the Education Action Zones (EAZ). Each funding initiative has its own regulations and monitoring frameworks, and many of the funds are directed towards specific disadvantaged areas or groups. As a result it is often diYcult for NGBs to access funds and meet the various criteria associated with funds eVectively. The various funding streams and implementation strategies need to be coordinated, and ideally rationalised, if delivery of funding into sport is to have maximum benefit. Sport England itself has nine Regional Sports Boards to co-ordinate regional activities, and these are in the process of developing county level strategic partnerships to co-ordinate activities locally. The developing partnerships at local level are improving the co-ordination of activities, but more work needs to be done to deliver multi-sports opportunities for all individuals.

This fragmentation leads to a number of problems at grass roots level, including multiple agencies all working in diVerent areas or sports. This inevitably leads to some confusion due to a lack of communication between local bodies. There is often an absence of ‘joined up’ thinking at local level, which may lead to over- investment (in terms of facilities, coaches or development workers) in some areas and under-investment in others. An example of this is the recent significant investment in educational facilities via the (then) New Opportunities Fund. This is intended to redevelop facilities on educational sites, which in return will be open for community access. The NOF funding has been routed through Sport England’s recently established Regional Boards and to grass roots bids received by Local Education Authorities. Sport England assisted with the evaluation of these bids, which will ensure that chosen projects will fit into the regional strategies (and therefore the local strategies). However, the RFU feels that, given our experience and knowledge of our own sport, it would have been beneficial for us to have been consulted more extensively on NOF funding into our own sport.. The RFU believes there is also a clear case that it is more eVective for funding to be planned in conjunction with and channelled through the NGBs themselves to ensure that there is coordinated development at all levels within each sport. Regarding rugby union, the RFU is clearly best placed to achieve this, as we have a comprehensive Strategic Plans, have developed the networks within our sport and the local structures to ensure that delivery of increased participation rates would occur. Given that one of Government’s stated objectives is to streamline funding and make it less complicated, there is an opportunity for simple and eVective funding structures within NGBs to be developed.

As part of the proposed new partnership with Government (see section 6), a more streamlined funding process is vital. Encouragingly, Government acknowledged in Game Plan that the issue of fragmented funding needs addressing. What this paper provides is a viable template to help achieve that. 3049212012 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 37

4.7 Government makes a net surplus of £4.7 billion from sport The Value of the Sports Economy in England in 2000, published by Cambridge Econometrics, examined the role of public funding for sport. The table below outlines public sector income and expenditure from sport in 2000 as per the report. The report noted that central Government takes far more out of sport than it invests in it. Total revenue to central Government from sport-related activities exceeded £5.5 billion in 2000 (comprising mainly income tax and VAT), compared to direct investment in sport of £661 million.

Table 7: Sport Related Income and Expenditure by the Public Sector in England, 2000

Sector Income from Expenditure on Balance to/(from) (figures in £ms) Sport Sport Government Central Government 5,517 661 4.856 Local Government 1,428 1,553 (125) Total 6,945 2,214 4,731

Source: The Value of the Sports Economy in England, Cambridge Econometrics. Note: Figures do not agree with Table 4 due to diVering sources (the table above excludes lottery funding but includes grants to local authorities.). The table reveals the following key points: — Cambridge Econometrics estimate that the total investment in sport in 2000 was more than c £2.2 billion, when including funding via local government. This figure is consistent with the total estimated by Game Plan (£2.2 billion in 2000) — However, the total income from sport is estimated to be £6.9 billion, meaning that Government takes c £4.7 billion net from sport. — Local government sees a net funding flow to sport of £125 million. This is in stark contrast to the situation for central Government, which sees a net inflow from sport of c. £4.9 billion. In particular, deriving an accurate amount spent by Local Authorities on funding sports activities is currently very diYcult, as it is impossible to identify the exact funding allocated to sports activities by Local Authorities, which fund sport through their leisure departments and educational budgets. In addition to fee income, the Local Authority sector receives income from a range of grants including Lottery and Football Foundation funding. Whilst it is clear from our analysis that, as Game Plan states, “Government is a major funder of sport and physical activity in England . . . in 1999–2000 total Government and lottery expenditure on sport was about £2.2 billion” this is only one side of the coin. Crucially, Game Plan does not comment upon the fact that Government receives almost £7 billion from sport. It is within this context that this paper calls for further increases in Government funding of sport.

4.8 Government tax policy on sport is inequitable and anomalous Sport in the UK has historically enjoyed no special tax privileges compared to “mainstream” business, unlike their counterparts in many countries where sports’ NGBs, as special not-for-profit organisations, are tax exempt. Surprisingly, in certain aspects sport in the UK is even in a worse position than commercial organisations. The four major spectator sports are significant contributors to the Exchequer, with an estimated £540 million in taxes arising industry-wide from the four sports in 2000 from Corporation Tax, VAT and PAYE and national insurance (see Appendix 6).

4.8.1 Taxation of amateur clubs Recent welcome initiatives have been introduced as a first step to address the tax disincentives currently facing sport at grass roots level through the local clubs. This Government has recently introduced tax incentives for grass roots sport through Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs), first proposed by the Consultation Document “Promoting Sport in the Community”25 and written into law as part of the Finance Act 2002. In the past sports clubs, whether incorporated or not, have generally enjoyed no special exemptions from tax; neither has a complex tax

25 Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education, 30 April 2003. 3049212012 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 38 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

system encouraged giving to clubs. These incentives are now available to CASCs either through registration as a charity with the Charity Commission or registration with the Inland Revenue. Registration under either of the two new packages changes the tax system they face. Moreover, the Local Government Act 2003 provides mandatory rate relief for CASCs at 80% with eVect from 1 April 2004, a most welcome step forward.

4.8.2 Taxation of NGBs The taxation position of the NGBs of sport, however, remains inequitable and contrary to Government Policy. Under current tax law, governing bodies of sport, despite existing to promote their respective sports, support their member clubs and providing significant public benefit, enjoy no corporation tax exemptions and suVer significant tax costs. Their tax position is often worse than their commercial counterparts since: — Their grass roots development costs are often not tax deductible, which acts as an eVective tax on NGBs investment in grassroots sport; and — Tax relief for the capital cost of new facilities is very limited, being restricted to the plant and machinery element contained in the project. This can be contrasted with hotels (also part of the leisure sector), which obtain tax relief for the entire cost of new facilities. The eVective tax rates payable on their profits are thus often significantly in excess of the statutory rate of 30% and higher than their commercial counterparts. At the extreme, a sports governing body which breaks even and makes no profit will find itself paying tax because of the disallowance of development costs. In Appendix 6, we outline the essential elements of a corporation tax exemption that would enable more funds to be invested in grass roots sport, remove the distraction of management time and eVort spent on corporation tax mitigation and compliance and create a more stable financial framework for running sport at the national level. In short, if Government policy is to increase funding to sport to enable it to deliver participation increases and the resultant benefits, the obvious place to start is to stop taxing sport.

4.9 Professional sport should not be expected to subsidise investment in grassroots sport The elite players in professional sport generate substantial earnings from the enjoyment that fans get by watching them play, either on television or live. Equally, professional clubs are increasingly commercial and business minded. However, this revenue is earned by the individual and/or their club (although pride and inspiration benefits the whole nation, as Government recognises). However, the grass roots element of sport is entirely diVerent to the professional elite and needs to be approached from a diVerent perspective. To bracket the two areas together is illogical. Providing pitches and changing rooms to ensure that children are physically active and healthy is an entirely separate issue to developing elite players with the ability to represent England on the world stage. If participation was only about identifying potential elite players, sport and its NGBs would adopt a “survival of the fittest”, “up or out” approach to all participants. As can be seen from section 5.3, that is patently not the case. More medals and national pride, and more players and national health, are two separate elements, which can feed each other, but are fundamentally distinct areas. The professional elite cannot be expected to “subsidise” the development of grass roots sport, for a number of reasons. In other leisure industries, the fact that elite artists have large earning potential does not mean their earning capacity is, or should be, used to fund grass roots activity. For example, — In literature, JK Rowling has become extremely wealthy as a result of the success of the Harry Potter series of books, but this income is not—and should not be—the basis for funding the national public libraries. Nor is there a direct “tax” levied on publishers to take part of their profits to fund libraries; — Leading artists, such as David Hockney, generate significant income for their works, and there is a thriving sector of commercial galleries. However, this is not accepted as a counter-argument for restricting public funding of the nation’s art galleries; — Catherine Zeta Jones is one of the world’s highest paid actresses, but this does not mean that public funding should be denied amateur dramatics groups. Moreover, NGBs have no legal right (or practical means) to secure or levy funds from individuals or clubs, which are private organisations or limited companies. A “virtuous circle” of commercial and sporting success, where each drives the other, is now widely accepted in professional elite sport. Extracting money from professional sport would therefore risk weakening that sport, domestically and internationally, leading to reduced success “on the field”, reduced interest in the sport, reduced income, etc. in a downward spiral. 3049212012 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 39

The principle of separating the funding of elite sport from the funding of grass roots development has also been established recently by the award of £16 million to motor sports to support the wider motor industry. In motor sports, the elite level is Formula One, where massive funding is generated by broadcasting and sponsorship deals. However, the wider motor sports industry is still supported by the Department for Trade and Industry’s Competitiveness Fund, which awarded the industry the £16 million in support. There is no justification to eVectively “penalising” successful professional sports by siphoning oV funds to pay for grass roots activities. The only thing this will create for sport is a “lowest common denominator” with the full potential of professional sport being held back.

4.10 NGBs do not have the financial resources to fund the necessary investment in grassroots Even the largest NGBs are relatively small organisations, given the scale of participation in their respective sports and the investment required to sustain and improve participation. The table below contains a summary of the RFU’s latest profit and loss accounts and balance sheets, together with figures for the other three largest NGBs:

Table 8: Selected NGBs’ Profit and Loss Accounts

£ms ECB FA LTA RFU Total Turnover 67 184 36 59 346 Costs (68) (174) (37) (57) (336) Operating Result (1) 10 (1) 2 10 Interest 1 2 1 (1) 3 Tax — (5) (3) 2 (6) Other — — - (3) (3) Retained Profit — 7 (3) — 4

Table 9: Selected NGBs’ Balance Sheets

£ms ECB FA LTA RFU Total Fixed assets 1 166 72 68 307 Current assets 30 119 20 37 206 Current liabilities (16) (152) (19) (13) (200) Long term liabilities – (20) (6) (20) (46) Provisions and other – (92) – (24) (116) Net assets 15 21 67 48 151

It is clear from the above that the RFU (similar to other NGBs) does not have the financial resources to fund the required investment into rugby union, as detailed in Section 6.4 and Appendix 5. Despite the relative lack of financial resources and the fact that there is no obligation on NGBs to direct resources into the grass roots, the RFU, in common with the other major NGBs, invests a considerable proportion of its resources in grass roots development. We will invest a total of £19 million into community rugby in our current financial year. However the NGBs do not have anywhere near suYcient financial resources to fund all grass roots development activities. In section 6, we examine the financial requirements of the RFU to deliver the improvements in facilities, coaching and other areas we consider essential to increase participation and meet Government targets. As demonstrated in section 4.8, a significant step towards addressing this issue (but at immaterial cost to the Treasury) would be to alter the tax status of NGBs to reduce the tax burden on the major sports. As discussed and demonstrated earlier, it is clear that increased participation in sport delivers benefits to society as a whole. The economic benefits do not accrue solely, or even mainly, to sport. Therefore, quite apart from sport’s inability to wholly fund the investment to drive increases in participation, it is inequitable to expect it to do so.

4.11 Summary The case for increasing Government investment in sport is, in summary, as follows: — Numerous speeches by Ministers (and the Prime Minister) would appear to indicate a growing realisation on the part of this Government of the importance of sport. — Participation in sport is a good thing in itself (sport for sport’s sake). 3049212012 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 40 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Sport helps to deliver Government’s wider policy agenda (health, education, anti-crime, social inclusion etc). — Physical inactivity is estimated to cost the economy £2 billion per annum whilst each 10% increase in physical activity saves the Exchequer an estimated £500 million. — In net terms Government takes about £5 billion per annum from sport. — Sport NGBs in the UK are taxed under a system that is illogical, unfair and contrary to Government policy. — All available evidence (accepting the significant diYculties inherent in the analysis) appears to suggest that sport in England is under-funded relative to other countries and other worthy causes under the DCMS umbrella. — Sport lacks the funding necessary to deliver its full potential benefit to the nation and the Exchequer. The following section outlines the reasons for further investment in rugby union and other major sports.

5. The Case for Further Investment in Rugby Union

5.1 Introduction We have shown that investing in sport can deliver real progress toward Government objectives and that increased investment will be required to achieve the increases in participation necessary to make significant progress towards the targets set out in Game Plan. In this section we illustrate why we believe that, an opportunity exists for Government to make rapid and cost-eVective progress towards the Game Plan targets, by further investment in rugby union, together with other major sports. We should not underestimate the challenge of delivering on the Game Plan objective. Increasing the proportion of people who participate in meaningful exercise on a regular basis from the current levels to reach the equivalent levels in Finland will mean an increase in participation of around 100,000 individuals per month for the next 20 years. It is an exceptionally demanding objective, and perhaps one that warrants further investigation into the cultural diVerences between Finland and England and the challenges that they present. However, we believe that we can play a key role in meeting this challenge, but significant further investment in sport is required to make it happen.

5.2 Rugby union is one of the high-interest, high-participation sports Rugby union is one of the country’s highest profile sports, in terms of match attendance (section 5.2.1), television exposure (section 5.2.2), participation (section 5.2.3), public interest and “star” players, who can be influential in determining young peoples’ attitudes. Rugby union is one of the sports best placed to convert non-participants or occasional participants into regular participants.

5.2.1 Live match attendance An illustration of the level of interest in rugby union can be seen by spectator numbers. The table below shows the level of attendance at professional club and national team matches in recent years:

Table 10: Attendance at rugby matches, 2000–01 to 2003–04

Year League games England international games 000’s 2000–01 755 453 2001–02 987 398 2002–03 1,114 481 2003–04 1,130 278(1) Source: RFU Note 1: Attendance figures impacted by the loss of Autumn Internationals due to Rugby World Cup 2003 Key points from the above table are: — Attendances at professional club rugby matches are growing steeply, with an average growth rate over the last three years of 17%. It should be noted that this growth rate is now being restricted due to capacity constraints at several Premiership clubs. — England games saw a further annual attendance of approximately 0.5 million with most major matches sold out many times over. 3049212013 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 41

5.2.2 Exposure on television and viewing figures

Unsurprisingly, football dominates the lists of TV’s sports viewing figures. Rugby is, however, the second strongest sport in terms of the most popular TV events. Table 11 below shows the top ten non-football sports events in 2003 in the UK, in terms of TV audiences; half of these events are from rugby union.

Table 11: Top 10 non-football sports events in the UK in 2003

Event Average Audience (m) RWC 2003—Australia vs England 12.7 RWC 2003—England vs France 7.9 Grand National 7.6 Brazilian Grand Prix 7.1 RWC 2003—England vs Wales 6.3 Wimbledon—Henman vs Grosjean 6.2 6 Nations 2003—Wales vs England 6.0 RWC 2003—South Africa vs England 5.5 US Grand Prix 5.4 Wimbledon—Henman v Nalbandian 5.3

Source: BARB / SPC Rugby’s popularity becomes clearer if the scope is widened to the top 100 non-football TV events of 2003, with rugby contributing more than twice the number of events as the next most popular sport, as shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12: 100 most popular TV sports in the UK in 2003 (excluding football)

Event No of events in top 100 programmes Rugby 31 F1 13 Athletics 9 Snooker 9 Tennis 9 Horse Racing 3 Darts 1 Golf 1 Tennis 1

Source: BARB / SPC Sport unites the nation in celebration and hope in a way no other activity can. The top level of elite sport can inspire and captivate an audience, as England’s victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup so graphically demonstrated. Strategic investment through a partnership of sport and Government can leverage these sports’ mass appeal and convert the TV audience into participants.

5.2.3 Participation in rugby union

It is widely recognised that the quality of data on participation numbers and trends in sport is poor, a point made on a number of occasions in Game Plan. The RFU also acknowledges this and we are committed to building reliable systems to rectify this, although it should be recognised that the gathering of accurate participation data on what is a voluntary and recreational activity, often played on an informal basis, is intrinsically diYcult and will require substantial investment. What is important, however, is not any particular degree of accuracy in the data but the overall scale of magnitude of the participant base and the opportunity this presents to leverage further interest and hence participation in our sport. We believe that the following table provides a realistic picture of the approximate levels of participation in rugby union. 3049212013 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 42 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Table 13: Estimated participation figures

All Figures to the nearest 000 Adult Youth Mini & Junior Total Estimated number of players 211,000 100,000 317,000 627,000 Estimated number of coaches 5,000 8,000 9,000 22,000 Estimated number of referees n/a n/a n/a 6,000 Estimated number of n/a n/a n/a 36,000 volunteers

Source: RFU. The table shows the potential platform upon which to develop participation and start to make progress towards the Government target activity levels. Further detail on participation can be found in Appendix 3, tables J and K.

5.3 The RFU’s Strategic Plan focuses on increasing grassroots participation A Sporting Future for All promised increased authority over spending decisions for NGBs which have “a clear strategy for participation . . .”. The RFU’s Strategic Plan, a comprehensive 146 page document, contains a detailed set of objectives and related strategies to increase grassroots participation rates, as summarised in the matrix below.

RFU Strategic Plan: objectives for grassroots rugby

Participation Increase the number of participants playing the game within the age grades of U13 to U16 by 2% pa. Increase the number of participants playing the game within the age grades of U17 to U18 by 2% pa. Increase the number of adult participants playing the game by 2% pa. Increase the number of teams playing in recreational rugby events by 5% pa.

Schools Increase the number of secondary schools aYliating and playing more than six matches by 2% pa. All clubs with mini and junior sections to have at least two links with local schools. Increase the number of links between HE and FE institutions and local clubs by 2% pa.

Coaching Ensure all teams have access to high quality coaching supported by the best coach development system. Achieve a players/coach ratio of 15:1 by the end of the plan period.

OYciating Provide a competent referee to every game of rugby union. Achieve a players/referee ratio of 30:1 by the end of the plan period.

It can be seen from the above that the RFU has a fundamental commitment to increasing participation and developing the grassroots of rugby union. Further, we have acted on these objectives and developed frameworks for their delivery at local level. A key aspect of such frameworks is partnership with other stakeholders at local level, but with clear national direction, to ensure policy is translated into action in a consistent manner.

5.4 Rugby union has a strong infrastructure in place to deliver participation increases Rugby union has a well developed and resourced sport infrastructure which can be leveraged by Government to deliver increased grassroots participation. Elements of this infrastructure include an extensive network of clubs and schools (section 5.4.1), large numbers of volunteers (section 5.4.2), a strong sport development infrastructure (section 5.4.3), well developed networks (section 5.4.4), and a modernised NGB leading the sport (section 5.4.5).

5.4.1 Number of clubs and schools In the UK, clubs are the bedrock of sport for participants once school age has passed. Rugby union has an extensive network of clubs that have significant potential for further development to attract and retain new participants in the sport, to deliver the Government’s principal objective. 3049212013 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 43

Table 14: Number of clubs

AYliated Clubs AYliated Total secondary schools Total 1,880 2,948 4,828

Source: RFU The majority of rugby clubs have been established for several decades, play a significant role in their local community and own their own facilities, providing a strong base from which to leverage investment into the sport.

5.4.2 Volunteers Definitive information on the extent of volunteering is by its very nature diYcult to access. The most recent estimate of sport-related volunteering comes from the Sport England commissioned Cambridge Econometrics report—“The Value of the Sports Economy in England in 2000”. This reported that there were almost 38,000 people employed in the sport voluntary sector, which includes sports clubs often run by amateurs as well as the increasing number of community facilities that are run as trusts and where any profits made are diverted back into the facilities. The total employment figure for the voluntary sport sector is similar to that in the Local Authority sector. However, this vastly underestimates the total volunteering input into the sports. The total volunteer network for the four major spectator sports is estimated to comprise 1.1 million people. Rugby union itself has a huge base of over 36,000 (see Table 13) skilled and committed volunteers. The RFU has recently completed research into the extent of volunteering and the results of rugby union’s ‘State of the Nation’ Survey—a survey of all RFU aYliated clubs—are shown below.

Table 15: Rugby Union—Key Volunteer Statistics

Key Volunteer Statistics Total Average hours volunteering per week 123 Estimated number of volunteer hours per season 4.9m Number of volunteers per club 26 Percentage of clubs saying that they need more volunteers 78%

Source: RFU State of the Nation Survey 2003 Within most sports, the vast majority of work, whether coaching, oYciating or administration, is done by volunteers. However, many sports are experiencing major problems in relation to reduced numbers of volunteers, an ageing volunteer profile and increasing regulatory responsibilities for volunteers (eg Child Protection and Health and Safety). Sport England has sought a remedy by providing the “Valuing Volunteers and the Running Sport” programmes. However, more investment in volunteers is necessary.

5.4.3 The RFU’s sports development infrastructure The role of the NGBs of major sports has developed from one of traditionally focusing on administration, rules and regulations towards a much broader one of developing all elements of their sport, including driving grassroots participation. In common with the aims of A Sporting Future for All, and as part of our strategic objectives, the RFU has an extremely well resourced sports development infrastructure. The existence of such networks and infrastructure makes major NGBs natural delivery agents for Government’s participation objectives. It would be both uneconomic and ineYcient for Government to duplicate these structures. The RFUs’ grassroots rugby programme is delivered by the Community Rugby department as summarised below:

RUGBY UNION’S DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE—THE COMMUNITY RUGBY DEPARTMENT The Community Rugby Department of the Rugby Football Union is responsible for the development of rugby at grass roots level and the implementation of the community rugby elements of the Strategic Plan 2005/06—2011/12. The department is headed by the Community Rugby and Operations Director, who has a team of key staV who implement the Strategic Plan at local level, including the Head of Rugby Development, Head of Game Investment, Head of Coaching Development and Schools and Youth Manager. The Community Rugby division employs more than 100 staV in total. 3049212014 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 44 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

The Head of Rugby Development has a large number of staV who assist in implementing the strategy. Nine Regional Managers, and 46 development staV, work with the 34 Constituent Bodies to develop Strategic Plans at Constituent Body level. The larger geographic areas have more than one development oYcer, such as in large counties like Yorkshire. Each Constituent Body has a development team, comprising a number of individuals, who work on a full- time or part-time basis. Around 250 individuals work at grass roots level, with funding for these individuals being generated by a range of sources including the RFU itself. Many are funded by Local Authorities or other public bodies through the local partnership frameworks which have been established. At regional level, Regional Rugby Development partnerships have been established, which compliments the Sport England Regional Partnerships which are being put in place—indeed in some areas rugby representatives sit on Sport England Regional Boards. A modern NGB should be at the centre of its sport, able to deal with all stakeholders in the sport— schools, clubs, Local Authorities, commercial providers, etc. The UK Sport / Home Country Sports Councils ‘Modernisation Programme’ report Investing in Change’ commented upon the future role for modernised NGBs. “NGBs have a central role as agents who should act as hubs to forge links and partnerships with stakeholders. Whilst NGBs are neither funders nor “delivery agents” per se, they are facilitative in the process of helping delivery to end-users. There is no doubt that modernisation priorities for NGBs must also cover areas such as “partnerships”/alliances and “communication” since much of an NGB’s work will be to deal with other organisations.”33 The RFU agrees with this analysis and, as shown above, has developed networks at local level comprising a number of elements, including county level bodies, primary and secondary schools, Local Authorities, LEAs, government agencies and other aYliated bodies.

5.4.4 Rugby union’s development networks—“beacon” clubs The RFU has developed the concept of encouraging its member clubs to reach minimum standards, one aspect of which is to play a leadership role to other clubs and schools in the area. The RFU has named these clubs “beacon clubs” Below county level, beacon clubs act as development “hubs” for local policy implementation. The concept of the beacon club is perhaps best illustrated in diagrammatic form (see below).

Chart 3: Beacon Club structures Key: PS % Primary School

Development Officer

PS PS PS PS PS Sec. PS Sec. PS school school PS

Beacon Beacon Beacon Club Club Club # 2 Club # 1 Club # 3

Sec. PS school PS PS PS

33 “Investing in Change”—High Level Review of the Modernisation Programme for Governing Bodies of Sport, p 22 3049212014 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 45

These enhanced clubs act as “hubs” in their local area, providing linkages to local schools and other aYliated clubs, as well as talent pathways. The beacon club links surrounding feeder clubs and secondary schools. In turn, each secondary school has a number of primary school “feeder schools”. To be granted beacon club status, clubs must meet a number of key criteria, notably having adequate child protection legislation, coaches and teams (including junior, senior and women’s teams). It should be stressed that the objective of this and other initiatives is to promote grassroots participation for its own sake, as a ‘good thing’, at whatever ability level and not as a competitive process driving people to higher levels of the sport. Beacon clubs will be integrated with schools via the School Sport Co-ordinators (SSCOs)34 within the PE, School Sports and Club Links (PESSCL)35 programme that is being rolled out currently and over the next 2–3 years. This should result in much more eVective links between schools and clubs, enabling school children to move into local clubs which is crucial if the post-school drop oV in participation rates is to be addressed. The focus at beacon clubs for those under 13 will not be on “specialising” techniques and skills but on using sport to learn only basic transferable skills such as co-ordination, balance and running. The RFU has also been extremely successful in developing mini forms of rugby to attract young people— notably tag rugby and touch rugby. These play a key role in introducing youngsters to the game safely and equipping them with the basic skills mentioned above.

5.4.5 A modernised, eVective and eYcient NGB leading the sport

It is stated as a key element of Governments’ delivery strategy (in A Sporting Future for All) that greater authority for funding is devolved to “modernised” NGBs—ie ones that are competently managed. The RFU supports and is totally committed to the Government-led agenda of improving governance, management and accountability as part of the modernisation programme for sport. The RFU has a stated objective in our Strategic Plan “To manage the organisation according to PLC ‘standards’”. We believe that we have made significant strides in improving our management personnel, structures and processes and are committed to continuing to do so. We have adopted many of the corporate governance processes and controls required of quoted companies, including Board sub-committees dealing with remuneration, compensation and audit matters and a risk management programme in compliance with the Combined Code. The most recent management audit carried out by Sport England resulted in only five, fairly minor (though useful and welcomed) recommendations for improvement, all of which have been implemented. The RFU has demonstrated through the WCPP funding programme and Community Club Development Programme the capability to prudently handle Government investment for the maximum benefit of our sport. We accept, however, that with investment comes responsibility and welcome being monitored against mutually agreed targets. Section 6 contains further details on the elements of a new “partnership” model for the RFU and Government.

5.5 The RFU understand its sport best

One of the aims of this paper is to convince Government that the further resources the RFU believes is needed for rugby union (see section 6.2) will be best delivered in partnership with the RFU itself, both being planned in conjunction with and channelled through the governing body. Central Government has publicly stated that it sees its role increasingly as a purchaser of services from Government departments, agencies or independent non-Government providers. These services will help meet Government objectives. The Government has made it clear that it intends to shift its funding emphasis for sport from inputs to outcomes. This new focus on setting and measuring outcomes from sports funding means that it is imperative that funds are used to maximum benefit. The starting point for any investment strategy must be a clear understanding of the current situation—ie where investment is a priority and where it is less urgent.

34 The School Sports Co-ordinators programme aims to increase sports opportunities for more young people through co- ordinated physical education, school sport and out of school hours learning activities that eVectively link with community sports facilities and development programmes, particularly in areas of disadvantage. The programme is funded and developed by DfES, DCMS, NOF, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust. c.£110 million has been invested in the SSCo programme since 2000. 35 The PESSCL programme is a joint DfES / DCMS initiative to implement a national strategy for PE and school sport. 3049212014 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 46 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

The RFU has conducted—and intends to continue to conduct—data gathering and research to track achievement against our strategic objectives. A summary of some of the key findings from the surveys which have been carried out is shown in Appendix 4. The RFU is in the process of implementing a new game- wide database and administration system which will track all game participants, including players, coaches, referees and volunteer administrators. This system, once fully implemented, will address the frequently cited criticism that insuYcient quantative data exists on sport, particularly relating to grassroots participation. It is simply common sense to recognise that NGBs are best placed to manage or oversee Government funding into their sports as they have the expert understanding, built up over numerous years, of both what is required for their sport and how best it should be delivered. The RFU believes we are both the most eYcient (in terms of the structures we already have in place) and eVective (due to our understanding of our sport) partner for Government in deploying the further resources needed to increase participation in rugby union.

5.6 Summary The case for increasing investment in rugby union can be summarised as follows: — Rugby union is one of the highest profile sports on most measures of public interest in sport. — Rugby union has a broad base of several hundred thousand participants attached to a network of almost 2,000 clubs. — Over 36,000 volunteers are estimated to be working in our sport giving a total of 4.9m free hours per annum to sport in their community. This volunteer network is a major asset capable of leverage through further investment. — The RFU has a fundamental commitment to increasing grass-roots participation, evidenced in the Strategic Plan and an annual investment of £20 million into the community game. — The RFU has a well-resourced, expertly-staVed development infrastructure of more than 100 employees, capable of delivering results quickly, eVectively and eYciently. — The RFU has the processes and structures in place to handle funds and deliver results, a prerequisite of Government’s stated objective of devolving greater power of spending to modernised NGBs. — The RFU is managed according to relevant PLC standards with a modernised, eVective and professionally-staVed management structure. — The RFU clearly understands best the needs of the sport of rugby union and this fits in with Government’s stated aim of becoming a purchaser rather than a deliverer of services in this area.

6. Developing a New Partnership between the RFU and Government

6.1 Introduction—a new partnership with Government This final section of the paper contains our proposals for a new partnership between the RFU and Government to help achieve the Game Plan vision of a mass participation culture. Game Plan emphasised the considerable period of time it will take to substantially increase participation and reap the benefits: “Achieving these benefits (of sport) will require significant behavioural change, probably only achievable over a 20 year period. Given the long lead times, action should not be delayed.”36 The RFU agrees with the approach taken in Game Plan of setting an over-arching and ambitious long- term target. We believe that the overall purpose of this new partnership between Government and the RFU should be to harness the appeal of the sport of rugby union to help achieve the Government’s participation target. Whilst this section contains our views on a new partnership model between Government and the sport of rugby union, we believe that the same principles could be adopted across many other major sports.

6.2 Devolved power of spending: new roles for Government and NGBs The new partnership will be based on new roles for Government and NGBs to deliver the Government strategy of devolved power of spending. This essentially involves Government becoming the purchaser of resources and the NGBs delivering to a jointly agreed plan, whilst playing a greater role in determining where such investment should be directed as part of the wider investment mix into sport (including facilities, coaching, volunteers, etc).

36 Game Plan, 2002, p 192. 3049212015 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 47

This proposal is certainly not radical new thinking, being the already-stated preference for Government. A Sporting Future for All introduced the concept of a new partnership between Government and NGBs, as follows:

“We want to use these new partnerships to modernise and professionalise the way sport is run. We will only devolve funding decisions where governing bodies:

— have a clear strategy for participation and excellence; and

— commit themselves to putting social inclusion and fairness at the heart of everything they do.

This is a radical change in the relationship between Government and governing bodies. In return for extra control over the allocation of public funds, we would expect the national governing bodies to ensure they adopt inclusive policies to expand the pool of talent from which they draw their top competitors.”37

In fact, certain existing sports programmes have several elements of the proposed partnership:

— The World Class Performance Programme operates on similar principles to that which we believe should be used for the whole of funding for major sports. UK Sport has granted funding for more than 35 World Class Performance Programmes totalling in excess of £180 million. The programme is based on an arrangement between UK Sport and Governing Bodies who both sign oV on a Performance Plan, with the plan monitored annually by UK Sport.

— The Community Club Development Fund, announced in March 2002, comprises £60 million of DCMS funding, managed by Sport England. The funding is made available to 16 sports, and the RFU has been allocated £9.4 million over the three years of the project. The aims of the Fund are to develop a sports club infrastructure in England that links with schools, provides appropriate pathways for developing talented individuals and meets the needs of local communities.

The fund is administered in conjunction with Sport England. NGBs are given a fixed allocation of finance, and the RFU in common with other major sports, is responsible for our own assessment of projects. While monitoring of the usage of funds takes place by Sport England, eVectively the NGBs can use the fund to target areas where most benefit can be derived. This is the first time such an arrangement has taken place.

We believe that similar arrangement should be extended across all sport funding programmes for the major sports. The key elements to make devolved powers of spending work to the satisfaction of both sides would, we believe, include:

— Long-term timescale for the plans—eg rolling 5-year plans;

— Agreed and clearly articulated objectives for NGBs. Performance will be measured directly against these so NGBs will be accountable;

— NGBs funded against outcomes, so if they fail then funding would be revisited. NGBs can help develop participation measurement indicators to assist in monitoring;

— A simplification of the funding streams and hence the relationship between NGBs and Government;

— More autonomy for the NGBs to make day-to-day decisions regarding priorities, programmes and resource allocation with a consequent reduction in micro-management by Government, Sport England and UK Sport;

— A clear focus on “demand side” ie NGBs defining and articulating what their sport (ie participants and potential / desired participants) needs, not “supply side” ie a succession of new Government set initiatives where NGBs chase money from each pot;

— Commitment on the part of NGBs to promote objectives agreed with Government with their member clubs and to utilise funding only with those clubs who clearly demonstrate support for, and adherence, to Government and NGB mutually agreed objectives; and

— Closer working relationship at the strategic level between the major sports and senior Government and related representatives (DCMS, Sport England, UK Sport, etc) to monitor the eVectiveness of the new partnership and respond to new policy initiatives.

37 A Sporting Future for All, 2000, p 20. 3049212015 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 48 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

6.3 One stop-shop funding for all investment in sport Game Plan drew attention to the extremely complex and fragmented nature of Government funding for sport, involving literally dozens of diVerent agencies and funds. This is discussed in detail in section 4.6.5. One of the outcomes of the new partnership will be a simplified system for sports funding. This is entirely consistent with the recommendations from Game Plan which highlighted the need to rationalise and simplify funding streams. As Tessa Jowell put it extremely succinctly in her introduction, “One pot of money beats 79 pots of money any day”. The report went on to further recommend that Sport England and UK Sport, “should become more customer focused by: — moving the organisations away from programme-based funding to customer-focused funding. For example, English NGBs should receive funding for grass roots according to a single national plan;38 — revising Sport England’s overall strategy to focus more on grass roots participation.” Recently Sport England has begun the process of moving to a plan-driven approach to its funding, called “Whole Sport Plans”. We welcome this as a major step in the right direction but this “one-stop shop” approach only covers those funds distributed through Sport England. This still leaves a myriad of other funding streams and we believe that this approach should be adopted, to the extent that it is both desirable and practicable, across all sport funding programmes

6.4 Funding requirements Sport lacks the funds necessary to meet current demand. If sport is to contribute, as we believe it should, to the achievement of Government’s targets for increased participation, it will require levels of investment on a scale this country has never experienced before. In particular, investment is needed for facilities improvements, coaches, development oYcers, volunteer programmes and the related administrative support. We have estimated the level of investment we believe will be required to drive a significant increase in the number of participants. While this inevitably involved a degree of “blue sky” thinking, the figures give an indication of the scale of magnitude of the investment required. Table 16 summarises the funding requirement, while full details can be found in Appendix 5.

Table 16: Estimated ten year funding requirement for rugby union

Area for investment Ten year requirement £m Facilities 395 Coaches 84 Development 14 OYcers Administration 16 Total 509

Source: RFU It is worth highlighting the key points from the table above. — We believe that what is required is a series of investments in a range of areas, consistently delivered over the long term (the figures in the above table are based on a 10 year timeframe). — The single largest element is a significant investment in facilities—almost £400 million. The number and quality of facilities available to existing and potential players requires improvement in order for them to become a desirable location for sports activity. Rugby union’s physical infrastructure, like that of many sports, is in a state of long-term decline and is in need of significant investment. As demonstrated in section 4.10, the RFU, despite its considerable commercial success over recent years, simply cannot begin to meet the demand for facilities investment. The recently introduced CCDP, delivering a total of £9.4 million to rugby union over three years, is a most welcome step in the right direction but significantly more is needed over a prolonged timeframe to address this issue. — Investment in coaches is critical to deliver programmes and the required level of coaching or advice for new players. This is especially important to combat the fall oV in participation levels in the 16 to 24 year old age group, an area which is highlighted in Game Plan as a key weakness across sport in general—lack of access to quality coaching is one of the key causes for this. The key role of the

38 Game Plan, 2002, p 203. 3049212015 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 49

new coaches would not be developing talent but teaching and introducing the game to the new participants and ensuring that existing participants receive quality coaching through their sporting lifetime. A total of approximately £84 million is estimated to be the requirement. — Investment in the development infrastructure would be required at an estimated cost of c£14 million. A total of more than 70 new development oYcers is anticipated to be needed to provide the link between the RFU and clubs, schools and local sports development partnerships, to encourage new initiatives to increase participation and to develop new opportunities. — While we currently have the infrastructure in place to manage and administer our existing development initiatives eVectively, such an increase in expenditure will necessarily require further increases in certain areas of administrative staYng, with c£16 million estimated to be required. The cost estimates in the table of £40 million per year over 10 years should be read in the context of the conservative estimate in Game Plan that the health cost benefits of a 10% increase in physical activity will be approximately £500 million per annum39. In addition further benefits should be achieved from the other social inclusion related areas discussed in section 4.4.

6.5 Tax exempt status Given that it is stated Government policy to increase the level of investment in grassroots sport the most logical starting point is to cease the drain on grassroots sport imposed by the current taxation system. As explained in section 4.8, not only does the current system remove funds from sport through the taxation of retained profit, but it acts as, eVectively, a tax on grassroots sport. The current fiscal system, therefore, positively discourages NGBs from investing in the grassroots of their sport. Given Government policy, quite apart from plain common-sense, this is an absurd anomaly. We believe therefore that Government should grant tax exemption to sports governing bodies. This would enable more funds to be invested in grass roots sport, remove the distraction of management time and eVort spent on corporation tax mitigation and compliance and create a more stable financial framework for running sport at the national level. This is explained in detail in Appendix 6 which contains the full text of a paper prepared on behalf of the ECB, FA, LTA and RFU on tax exemption for Sports Governing Bodies.

6.6 Summary The proposed new partnership between the RFU and Government would be based on the following: — The RFU and Government should form a new partnership to ensure that rugby union contributes significantly to the Game Plan vision of a mass participation culture and the associated health and social inclusion benefits. — The partnership model should deliver the stated Government policy of devolved powers of spending to NGBs with Government as a purchaser of services and the NGBs as delivery agents. — The partnership should be based around mutually agreed long-term strategic plans and more frequent high-level dialogue between Government, the sports agencies and the RFU. — The concept of “one-stop shop” funding plans, currently being implemented by Sport England in their Whole Sports Plan approach, should be extended across all sport funding as far as possible. — The RFU estimates that funding of c£400 million in total over 10 years will be required to have a realistic chance of significantly increasing participation — Government should make NGBs tax exempt to stop the inequitable and anomalous system whereby NGBs are eVectively taxed on their investment in grassroots sport and national stadia.

APPENDIX1

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

Appendix 1: Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms Used in This Document CASCs Community Amateur Sports Clubs CCDP Community Club Development Programme CCPR Central Council of Physical Education DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport DfES Department for Education and Skills ECB England and Wales Cricket Board

39 Game Plan, para 2.20, p 47. 3049212016 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 50 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Equity Recognition of, and help in over-coming, barriers faced by people involved, or wanting to be involved, in sport—so increasing accessibility and opportunities. Exchequer Funding Central Government funding source for sports / NGBs FA English Football Association GB Great Britain GHS General Household Survey Governing Body See “NGB” HCSC Home Country Sports Council Home Country Sport England, Sportscotland, Sports Council for Wales, Sports Council for Sports Councils Northern Ireland INSET In-Service Education Training Investing in Change A specific initiative within the Modernisation Programme to produce the Competency Framework for NGBs ICT Information, Communication and Technology LTA Lawn Tennis Association LA Local Authority LEA Local Education Authority LFP Local Football Partnership Modernisation “The process of continuing development for an NGB towards greater eVectiveness, eYciency and independence.” Modernisation The Government-funded initiative to provide support to NGBs (at both UK/GB Programme and Home Country level) to help them in Modernisation NGB National Governing Body N.I. Northern Ireland NOF New Opportunities Fund. A Lottery Distributor created in 1998 to award grants to education, health and environment projects throughout the UK PE Physical Education PESSCL PE, School Sport & Club Links PfS Playing for Success PPP Public Private Partnership PSHE Personal Social and Health Education RDM Rugby Development Manager RDO Rugby Development OYcer RFU Rugby Football Union RRDM Regional Rugby Development Manager SSCO School Sport Co-Ordinator SPAB Sport and Physical Activity Board Sport England The Sports Council for England Sports Councils Government funded organisations whose primary role is to develop and maintain the infrastructure of sport and for distributing Exchequer and National Lottery funds to sport SU Strategy Unit (previously Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU)) UK United Kingdom UKSI United Kingdom Sports Institute United Kingdom A network of centres and a central team of experts to support the UK’s top Sports Institute sportsmen and women. UKSI comprises the four Home Country Sports Institutes along with a central services team at UK Sport UK Sport Sports Council responsible for distribution of Exchequer and Lottery funding to UK level NGBs and elite athletes; co-ordinates overall policy, the support of elite sport at the UK level as well as UK-wide programmes such as anti-doping and major events. In addition, it manages the international relationships of the UK and co-ordinates a UK-wide approach to any international issues WCPP World Class Performance Programme 3049212017 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 51

APPENDIX2

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Appendix 2: Sources and References This lists information sources used for the purpose of writing this paper, or referenced within the document

Rugby: “State of the Nation” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Futures—2003” “RFU Strategic Plan 2000–01—2007–08” (Produced by the RFU) “A Review of Schools, Students & Youth Rugby—2003” (Produced by the RFU) “The National Facilities Strategy for Rugby Union in England” (Produced by the RFU) “The A-Z of Community Rugby” (Produced by the RFU) “A Review of the 1st Strategic Plans produced by Constituent Bodies of the RFU” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Football Union Annual Financial Statements 1997–98” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Football Union Annual Financial Statements 1998–99” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Football Union Annual Financial Statements 1999–00” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Football Union Annual Report 2001” (Produced by the RFU) “Rugby Football Union Annual Report 2002” (Produced by the RFU) “Sticking to a Game Plan” (Produced by the Dept. for Culture, Media & Sport) “Nationwide Consultation—Research Study Conducted for the RFU: 1997” “Nationwide Consultation—Research Study Conducted for the RFU: 1998” “EFDR Market Research Results—2000” “Rugby Football Participation Statistics” (Produced by the RFU) “Community Rugby—Growing the Grass roots” (Produced by the RFU)

Government / other: “Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives” (Produced by the DCMS / Strategy Unit, December 2002) “Department for Culture Media & Sport—Strategic Plan 2003–06” (Produced by the DCMS) “A Sporting Future for All” (Produced by DCMS) “Preventing Social Exclusion” (Produced by the Cabinet OYce) “Count Me In—The Dimensions of Social Inclusion through Culture & Sport” (Produced by Leeds Metropolitan University) “Sport’s Game Plan: Delivering the Goods” (Produced by the Central Council of Physical Recreation) “Just Do it? Turning Sports Policy into Sports Practice” (Produced by Loughborough University) 3049212017 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 52 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

“Everybody Wins: Sport & Social Inclusion” (Produced by the FA, RFU, LTA, ECB, CCPR and UK Athletics) “Saving Lives, Saving Money” (Produced by the CCPR) “Sportsmatch Funding Program” (Reproduced from http://www.sportsmatch.co.uk) “The Selective Re-investment in British Sport 1996–2000” (Produced by Southampton Business School & Loughborough University) “General Household Survey: Participation in Sport in Great Britain” (Produced by Sport England / UK Sport) “Sport in Canada: Everybody’s Business Leadership, Partnership and Accountability” (Produced by the House of Commons Canada) “Policy Action Team 10” (Produced by the DCMS) “Young People and Sport in England: Trends in Participation 1994–2000” (Produced by MORI) “The Coaching Task Force—Final Report” (Produced by the DCMS) “Sport England Annual Report 1998–99” (Produced by Sport England) “Annual Report 1999–2000” (Produced by Sport England) “Sport England Annual Report 2000–01” (Produced by Sport England) “Annual Report 2001–02 Parts 1 & 2” (Produced by Sport England) “Lottery Fund Awards 1999–2000” (Produced by Sport England) “Road to Athens—Annual Review 2001–02” (Produced by UK Sport) “Positive Futures—A Review of Impact and Good Practice” (Produced by Sport England) “The Sporting Toolkit” (Produced by UK Sport) “Community Amateur Sports Clubs—The Tax Options” (Produced by Deloitte &Touche Sport) “Corporate Services Delivery Review” (Produced by the Ministry of Sport & Recreation) “UK Competition Review 2000–05” (Produced by UK Athletics) “Athletics Facilities Strategy for the UK: 2002–06” (Produced by UK Athletics) “PIU Sports Project” (Produced by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit) “Elite Sports Funding Review” (Produced for the DCMS) “England, The Sporting Nation—A Strategy” (Produced by the English Sports Council—now known as Sport England) “Sports Participation & Ethnicity in England—National Survey 1999–2000” (Produced by Sport England) “Planning for Play—Playing Fields and Positive Gains for Sport 2001–02” (Produced by the DCMS) “UK Sport Lottery Strategy 2002–05” (Produced by UK Sport) “Active Britain—A Manifesto for Sport & Recreation” (Produced by the CCPR) “Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation” (Reproduced from http://www.archive.oYcial-documents.co.uk) 3049212017 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 53

“The Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth” (Reproduced from the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Volume 14. £1 1998) “Camelot Annual Reports & Accounts 2000” (Produced by Camelot) “Camelot Annual Reports & Financial Statements 2001” (Produced by Camelot) “Camelot Annual Reports & Financial Statements 2002” (Produced by Camelot)

APPENDIX3

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Table A

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE AND TOTAL COSTS OF SELECTED CRIMES, 1999–2000

Crime Category Average Cost per Number of Total Cost Crime(£) Incidents (000s) (£ billion)

Crime against Individuals and households Homicide 1,100,000 1.1 1.2 Serious Wounding 130,000 110 14.1 Other Wounding 2,000 780 1.5 Sexual OVences 19,000 130 2.5 Robbery/Mugging 4,700 420 2.0 Burglary (dwelling) 2,300 1,400 2.7 Vehicle Theft 890 3,500 3.1 Common Assault 540 3,200 1.7

Commercial and Public Sector Victimisation Burglary (not in a dwelling) £2,700 960 2.6 Theft of a Commercial Vehicle £9,700 40 3.1 Theft from a Commercial Vehicle £700 60 0.0 Criminal Damage £3,000 3,000 2.6

Source: Home OYce Research Study: The Economic and Social Costs of Crime, 2000

Table B

SUMMARY OF THE MONETARY VALUE OF SAVING A HIGH RISK YOUTH

Activity Estimated Cost Estimated Cost ($ ’000) (£ ’000) Career Criminal 1,300–1,500 808–932 Heavy Drug User 370–970 230–603 High School Drop-out 243–388 151–241 Total cost 1,913–2,858 1,189–1,776 Less duplication (crimes committed by heavy drug users) 11%–20% 11%–20% Monetary Value of Saving a high-risk youth 1,700–2,300 1,057–1,430

Source: M Cohen (1998). The Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth. Journal of Qualitative Criminology, Volume 14 No 1. Note: All $ Costs are at 1997 prices. Exchange rate used is as at 14 August 2003. ($1%£0.62, Source: Financial Times) 3049212018 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 54 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Table C

SPORT RELATED OUTPUT AND EMPLOYMENT IN ENGLAND, 2000 Sector Employment (’000) Value Added (£m)

Commercial Sport 157.1 3,553 Of which: Spectator sports 48.4 709 Participation sports 21.6 380 Retailing 29.4 966 Sport-related manufacturing 32.6 840 Commercial Non-sport 169.3 4,226 Of which Higher Education Establishments 17.8 422 Voluntary Sector 37.9 1,215 Local Government 37.5 844 Of which: Sports Services 21.7 All sport related activities 401.8 9,838

Source: The Value of the Sports Economy in England, Cambridge Econometrics

Table D

SPORT RELATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN ENGLAND, 2000 Sector Income (£m) Expenditure (£m)

Central Government 5,517 661 Of which: Grants 661 Income Tax 3,192 Company Tax VAT and other duties 2,325

Local Government 1,428 1,553 Of which: Indoor Facilities 157 492 Outdoor Facilities (including golf) 37 120 Community Centres etc 13 71 Sports Development 95 70 Revenue Grants 645 Capital Grants 90 Local Tax 313 Wages 843

Source: The Value of the Sports Economy in England, Cambridge Econometrics

Table E

ESTIMATED SOURCES OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR SPORTS INITIATIVES

Source of Funding Initiative Name Description Funding (£)

DfES Playing for Success Playing for Success is an educational 78 Playing for Success initiative that aims to deliver centres are currently educational programmes to under open. We estimate that achieving pupils from primary and each centre attracts secondary schools. DfES funding of £50,000 per year, total annual funding of £3.9 million 3049212019 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 55

Source of Funding Initiative Name Description Funding (£)

DCMS/DfES School Sport Aims to develop a network of An estimated £279 Co-ordinators co-ordinators for sports policy at million between 2001–02 school level, who will improve sports and 2005–06 opportunities in and outside secondary schools and improve linkages with primary schools. By 2006 there will by 400 School Sport Co-ordinator Partnerships in place; with 3,200 School Sport Co-ordinators and 18,000 Primary and Special School Link Teachers. DCMS/DfES Specialist Sports To establish a network of 400 £139 million between Colleges Specialist Sports Colleges 2002–03 and 2005–06 DCMS Coaching Task To implement the recommendations £28 million between Force of the Coaching Task force, including 2003–04 and 2005–06 establishing a network of 3,000 community sports coaches by 2006. DCMS Step into Sport/ Funding distributed by Sport England £3 million in 2002–03 Volunteering into and the Youth Sport Trust to increase and £4 million from sport numbers of volunteers 2003–04 to 2005–06. DCMS Sporting Funding for investment in up to 500 £10 million in 2003–04 Playgrounds school playgrounds DCMS Club/Talent The programme aims to improve the £10 million between Development range and quality of teaching, 2004–05 and 2005–06 coaching and learning for talented sports people in order to raise their aspirations and improve their performance, motivation and self- esteem. DCMS Community Club Programme of capital investment on Announced in October Development community club facilities. 2002—£60 million Programme between 2003–04 and 2005–06. The 4 Sports receive £9.4 million each over 3 years, the remainder to be distributed via Sport England to other sports New PE and Sport Funding to develop facilities to be £581 million in total Opportunities Programme available to the local community. announced, to be spent Fund Administered by NOF but Sport between September 2000 England also give advice on and 2005. For the applications. Applications for funding purposes of the model, led by LEAs we have estimated equal spending of £116.2 million each year. New Better Play Grant To provide innovative and distinctive £8.3 million to be spent Opportunities Programme children’s play projects between 2001 and 2004. Fund Assume equal spending of £2.8 million per year New Activities for young Funding for activities, including A total of £38.8 million Opportunities people programme sports, for school leavers, particularly is to be spent between Fund those as risk of becoming out of touch 2001 and 2004. Assume with education, training and equal annual employment opportunities. expenditure of £12.9 million per year New Out of School Supports learning related sports A total of £25 million is Opportunities Hours Sport activities which increase young to be spent between 2001 Fund Activities people’s self esteem and confidence and 2004. Assume equal annual expenditure of £8.5 million per year 3049212020 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 56 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Source of Funding Initiative Name Description Funding (£)

Sport England Space for Sport This programme is similar to the A total of £130 million and Arts NOF PE and Sport programme, but is is to be distributed aimed at a select 65 LEA areas which by 2004—assume display multiple deprivation. The equal expenditure of programme targets at primary schools £43.3 million between and any developed facilities must be 2001 and 2004. available to the local community. Funded from a range of Government sources, comprising Capital Modernisation Funding, Sport England, Arts Council and NOF funding. Sport England Playing Fields and Funds the development and A total of £28.5 million Community Green maintenance of green space areas such is to be distributed Spaces Scheme as playing fields, community play between 2001 and 2004. areas and other green spaces Assume equal expenditure of £7.1 million per year Sport England Sport England— Includes all Sport England Lottery Sport England Lottery Lottery Fund funded projects funding has reduced significantly in recent years, from £121 million in 2000–01 to £79 million in 2002–03. Estimate that Lottery funding will remain at £80 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06. Sport England SportsMatch Matches existing private sector sports SportsMatch’s budget sponsorship deals which meet key was £3.55 million in community criteria 2001–02 and 2002–03; and £3.675 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06. Sport England/ Football League Sport England currently funds these. £2.5 million per year NOF Centres of The funding was replaced by Football until 2001–02 Excellence Foundation funding from 2002–03, sourced through Sport England and NOF Sport England Football Licensing The FLA licences league and £925,000 per annum for Authority international football grounds, and 2001–02 and 2002–03— oversees the control of safety at the rising the £1.125 million grounds per annum from 2003–04 to 2005–06 Sport England Football Government funding for the Football Total funding of Foundation Foundation £62 million between 2000–01 and 2003–04 UK Sport World Class Programme designed to assist UK £25 million per annum Performance governing bodies and elite athletes Programme UK Sport Support to Financing support provided to UK/ £5.9 million per annum Governing Bodies GB national governing bodies UK Sport Modernising NGBs To assist NGBs to institute structural £7 million over three reviews, support the development of years from 2001–02 to staV and volunteer management and 2003–04 enhance communication and income generation capacity UK Sport World Class Events Programmes designed to enable UK £1.6 million per annum Programme Sport to bid for and attract major international competitions to the UK UK Sport UKSI Central United Kingdom Sport Institute £4 million per annum Services Team Central Services Team. 3049212020 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 57

Source of Funding Initiative Name Description Funding (£)

UK Sport Anti Doping To administer the dope testing £2 million per annum Programme programme for athletes representing the UK or taking part in competitions held in the UK

Source: DCMS, Sport England, other Government Departments, Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis

Table F

DCMS RESOURCE EXPENDITURE (1998–99—2002–03) and PLANNED BUDGET (2003–04—2005–06)

Resource Expenditure and 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Budget (figures in £m) (est) (plan) (plan) (plan)

Museums, Galleries and 375 391 425 464 494 531 548 564 Libraries Arts 193 230 239 254 297 337 367 412 Sport 46 51 52 67 115 111 120 123 Historical Buildings, 143 145 145 140 155 155 153 153 monuments and sites Gambling and the National 1,148 1,169 1,403 1,360 1,635 1,941 1,677 1,324 Lottery Broadcasting and Media 99 104 104 103 110 115 122 122 Other 123 134 137 150 148 147 161 167 Total 2,127 2,224 2,505 2,538 2,954 3,337 3,148 2,865

Source: DCMS Annual Report 2003

Table G

DCMS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (1998–99—2002–03) AND PLANNED BUDGET (2003–04—2005–06)

Capital Expenditure and 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Budget (figures in £m) (est) (plan) (plan) (plan)

Museums, Galleries and 95 31 8 31 24 35 32 37 Libraries Arts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sport 2 2 1 1 12 29 3 3 Historical Buildings, 0 1 2382212 monuments and sites Gambling and the National 683 739 452 351 298 262 226 178 Lottery Broadcasting and Media 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Other 10 7 26 27 34 30 32 32 Total 790 782 491 415 378 360 297 264

Source: DCMS Annual Report 2003 3049212021 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 58 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Table H DCMS CAPITAL AND RESOURCE EXPENDITURE (1998–99—2002–03) and PLANNED BUDGET (2003–04—2005–06)

Total (Resource ! Capital) 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 Budget (figures in £m) (est) (plan) (plan) (plan) Museums, Galleries and 470 422 433 495 518 566 580 601 Libraries Arts 193 230 239 254 297 337 367 412 Sport 48 53 53 68 127 140 123 126 Historical Buildings, 143 146 147 143 163 157 155 165 monuments and sites Gambling and the National 1,831 1,908 1,855 1,711 1,933 2,203 1,903 1,502 Lottery Broadcasting and Media 99 106 106 105 112 117 124 124 Other 133 141 163 177 182 177 193 199 Total 2,917 3,006 2,996 2,953 3,332 3,697 3,445 3,129 Source: DCMS Annual Report 2003

Table I 4 SPORTS LISTED TV EVENTS

Category A Category B The FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament Cricket Test Matches played in England The FA Cup Final Non-Finals play in the Wimbledon Tournament The Wimbledon Tennis Finals All Other Matches in the Rugby World Cup Finals Tournament The European Football Championship Finals Five Nations Rugby Tournament Matches Tournament Involving Home Countries The Rugby World Cup Final The Cricket World Cup—the Finals, Semi-finals and Matches Involving Home Nations’ Teams Source: Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis

Table J RUGBY PARTICIPATION INFORMATION, 2003

Category % Number (millions) No involvement 50 23.2 Watched on TV 46 21.3 Read newspaper reports 20 9.3 Watched game live 12 5.6 Played rugby 4 1.9 Refereed/coached/volunteered 3 1.4 Source: Making an Impact, RFU 2003

Table K NUMBER OF RFU INSURED TEAMS

2000–01 2001–02 North 867 883 Midlands 855 846 South East 812 841 South West 1,264 1,302 Total 3,798 3,872 Source: RFU Annual Report 2002 3049212022 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 59

APPENDIX4

RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE RFU “State of the Nation”Survey The RFU conducts an annual survey of all 2,000 aYliated clubs—the “State of the Nation” survey. The survey is carried out as part of the annual return to the RFU for insurance purposes, and thus achieves an extremely high response rate (the most recent survey reported over 80% completions, extremely high for a survey of this type). The survey is comprehensive in scope, collating information on a number of issues aVecting the clubs, including facilities, staYng levels (including coaches and volunteers). Some key information arising from the 2002 survey were: — The average club had a membership base of 80 male players and five female players, although almost half of clubs had seen a reduction in membership over the previous year. Encouragingly, 67% reported an increase in boys numbers (30% girls). More than half of clubs run three male XVs, but only 17% run a women’s XV. 45% run a veteran’s XV. — 34% of club facilities are owned, with 4.7% part owned, 44% leased or rented and 15% hired publicly. The average number of pitches per club was 2.4, with 1.2 mini/midi pitches. 23% of clubs have no training areas on site. — 95% of clubs have changing accommodation, but only 69% say that this meets their needs. 72% have showers, only 8% have shower cubicles, and almost 20% do not have adequate toilet facilities. — 16% of all adult teams have no coach; 47% of all adult teams have an unqualified coach. Most coaches (70%) do not have a job description. — 41% of clubs have no links with any educational establishment, and only 33% have a link with their Local Authority Sports Development OYcer. Only 13% have a link with their Active Sports Partnership. — 12% of clubs have a volunteer recruitment policy, and less than 10% of clubs have written job descriptions. The average hours per week spent volunteering during the season is 123 hours per club (almost 5 million volunteer hours in total), and 61% of clubs say that volunteer hours have increased. The average club has 25.8 volunteers. — Only 80% of clubs have public liability insurance cover, with 43% having personal accident insurance.

APPENDIX5

THE RFU’s ESTIMATE OF TEN YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

The figures below represent the RFU’s best estimate of Requirement Unit Cost Financial what is required to significantly increase the level of (Number) (£’000) Requirement (£m) participation in rugby union. Facilities 1190 50 £59.5m — Upgrading existing club facilities — Developing new club facilities 100 250 £25.0m — Upgrading existing pitches/courts 5000 pa 5 £250.0m — Developing new pitches/courts 50 pa 35 £18.0m — Floodlighting 1200 35 £42.0m Facilities—Total Investment required £394.5m

Annual Number of Financial StaYng Requirements Salary years Requirement(£m) Coaches 1500 (FTE) £35k 8 £4.2m — Full time and part time coaches — CASC Coaches 400 £25k 8 £80.0m Coaching—Total Investment Requirement £84.2m

Development oYcers — Referee Development OYcers 4 £35k 8 £1.1m — Part Time Referee Trainers 9 £5k 8 £0.4m — LSP Development OYcers 48 £25k 8 £9.6m — Regional Development Managers 9 £35k 8 £2.5m Development—Total Investment Requirement £13.6m 3049212023 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 60 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Annual Number of Financial StaYng Requirements Salary years Requirement(£m)

StaYng Requirements Administrative and other oYcers — Referee Regional OYcers 9 £35k 8 £2.5m — Administrative StaV 55 £20k 8 £8.8m — Regional Facilities Managers 7 £35k 8 £2.0m — Regional Volunteer Managers 9 £35k 8 £2.5m Administration——Total Investment Requirement £15.8m StaYng—total investment required 113.6m Total Investment Required 508.1m Source: Rugby Football Union

APPENDIX6

TAX EXEMPTION FOR SPORTS GOVERNING BODIES

A PAPER PREPARED ON BEHALF OF CRICKET, FOOTBALL, LAWN TENNIS AND RUGBY UNION

Tax Exemption for Sports Governing Bodies

Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Tax Exemption for Sports Governing Bodies 2.1 Objective of this Paper 2.2 The Government’s Stated View on the Benefit of Sport 2.3 The Overall Financial Benefits from Sport 2.4 Tax Reliefs for Amateur Clubs 2.5 The Next Step—Tax Exemption for NGBS 2.6 The Current Tax Position of NGBS 2.7 The Case for Corporation Tax Exemption 2.8 Technical Aspects—The Essential Elements 2.9 Potential Tax Costs 2.10 Conclusion

Addendum:Governing Bodies of Sport—Use of Charitable Status 1. Possible use of Charitable Status by NGBS 2. The Provision of Sport for Young People or the Community at Large 3. Conclusion

1. Executive Summary — This Government has demonstrated that it is committed to supporting the development of sport, particularly at the grassroots. — Government has already evidenced this commitment by, amongst other things, the introduction of the tax incentives for grassroots sport through the Community Amateur Sports Clubs legislation and the Community Club Development Programme. — It is widely recognised that sport makes a substantial contribution to the nation’s wellbeing and prosperity through: — its economic contribution; — helping to deliver Government’s wider policy agenda (health, education, anti-crime, social inclusion, etc); and — a substantial contribution to the Exchequer. 3049212024 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 61

— Sports national governing bodies, which play a crucial role in the delivery of sport, suVer major corporation tax disadvantages. Government eVectively taxes governing bodies’ investment in grassroots sport, which prevents them from maximising this investment. Given current Government policy of increasing its own investment in, and encouraging others to increase their investment in, grassroots sport, this is an absurd anomaly. — Exempting the governing bodies from corporation tax would remove this anomaly and have a significant beneficial impact on sports development. — The Exchequer cost of granting exemption is minimal.

2. Tax Exemption for Sports Governing Bodies

2.1 Objective of this paper The national governing bodies (“NGBs”) of the four major spectator sports of cricket, football, lawn tennis and rugby union (the “4 Sports”), believe that they can help to deliver Government objectives relating to participation in sport and physical activity, if further investment is forthcoming. Part of that investment could come from corporation tax exemption for all NGBs. This will enable more funds to be invested in grassroots sport, remove the management and administrative time currently spent on corporation tax and create a more stable financial framework for running sport at the national level. This paper contains an estimate of the current benefits to the economy from sport, explains the diYculties the NGBs face with the current corporation tax system and argues the case for corporation tax exemption. The report also includes the suggested essential elements of a corporation tax exemption.

2.2 Government’s stated view on the benefit of sport Government recognises the value and importance of sport, not only to the economy, but in promoting health and social inclusion and reducing crime. In a speech to the British Olympians on 11 January 2001 the Prime Minister said: “I see sport as a pro-education policy, a pro-health policy, an anti-crime and an anti- drugs policy—a key to the liberation of our young people’s potential”. Government’s commitment to help sport was reflected in “A Sporting Future for All”, which set out Government’s plans for sport. In the foreword, the Prime Minister states: “We want to see everyone given a better sporting future”. This commitment was reinforced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 17 April 2002: “The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are determined to do all we can to support sport throughout the whole country.” In his announcement of the review of sports policy, the Prime Minister stated that “sport needs more people playing at the grass roots level and more sportsmen and women excelling on the international stage . . .”40. That review of sports policy culminated in the release in December 2002 of “Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives”. The report acknowledged the major role sport could play in promoting health, improving education, reducing crime and increasing social inclusion. It went on to recommend that Government should set itself two overarching objectives: — A major increase in participation in sport and physical activity; and — A sustainable improvement in success in international competition.

2.3 The overall financial benefits from sport Sport is a major contributor to the economy. Households in England spent almost £11.5bn on sport related goods and services in 2000, and sport is a major employer, providing over 400,000 full time jobs41. There are an estimated 110,000 community sports clubs across the UK with a membership in excess of 5.6 million. The vast majority of these clubs are financed and run through the eVorts of 1.5 million volunteers, whose contribution to sport has been estimated at £1.5bn each year42. It has been estimated that the 4 Sports generate:

Employment in the Governing Bodies, Leagues and clubs 31,000 people Part-time employment and volunteers One million participants Income each year of £2.1bn Source: 4 Sports.

40 Cabinet OYce News Release CAB 007/02, 1 February 2002, “Prime Minister Announces Review of Sports Policy”. 41 The Value of the Sports Economy in England in 2000, Sport England, 2003. 42 The Value of Volunteers, G Nicholls, University of SheYeld, 2003 (forthcoming). 3049212024 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 62 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

The 4 Sports already help to contribute significantly to the achievement of Government’s policies; it has been estimated that in these sports there are: 49,000 clubs 9.4 million regular participants Source: 4 Sports. Government recognises the importance of participation in sport and physical activity in meeting its health agenda, in particular reducing UK levels of obesity, which have trebled since 1980. An increase in participation as a result of further investment in grassroots sport through the NGBs will result in significant returns in the form of direct and indirect health care savings. Sport attracts international events to the United Kingdom, providing many advantages to the UK, including improving our international standing and generating economic benefits. These events are organised by sport’s NGBs and already contribute significantly to the Exchequer. Thus, for example, it was estimated that the European Football Championships, Euro ‘96, contributed £64 million in taxes43. In addition to the tax generated from international events, the four sports already contribute significant amounts of tax on an industry-wide basis, estimated as follows for 2000:

£m

Corporation tax 13 Value added tax 100 PAYE and national insurance 427 Total 540

Source: Deloitte & Touche Sport. Sports’ investment in the community is substantial. During the year 2000, the 4 Sports invested the following amounts in grass roots development44:

£m

Cricket 7.0 Football 49.5 Lawn tennis 10.0 Rugby union 7.0 Total 73.5

Source: 4 Sports. This annual investment increased substantially in 2001 to £100 million.

2.4 Tax reliefs for amateur clubs Government has already evidenced its commitment to assist the development of grassroots sport through fiscal policy by the introduction of the tax incentives for Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs), first proposed by the Consultation Document “Promoting Sport in the Community”45 and written into law as part of the Finance Act 2002. The incentives for CASCs have recently been extended by the Local Government Act 2003, which provides 80% mandatory rate relief with eVect from 1 April 2004. In the past, sports clubs, whether incorporated or not, have generally enjoyed no special exemptions from tax; neither has a complex tax system encouraged giving to clubs. These incentives are now available to amateur clubs either through registration as a charity with the Charity Commission or registration under the special tax reliefs for CASCs with the Inland Revenue. Registration under either of the two new packages changes the tax system they face.

2.5 The next step—tax exemption for NGBs These initiatives are welcome steps to address the tax disincentives currently facing amateur clubs. However, the position of the NGBs of sport, which provide structure, organisation and funding for grassroots sport, now needs to be addressed.

43 “Television and Grass Roots Sport—two sides of the same coin”—CCPR, April 2001. 44 “Television and Grass Roots Sport—two sides of the same coin”—CCPR, April 2001. 45 Published by HM Treasury, November 2001. 3049212025 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 63

2.6 The current tax position of NGBs As it currently stands, the taxation of NGBs is illogical, unfair and contrary to Government policy. Under current tax law, NGBs of sport, despite existing to promote their respective sports, support their member clubs and providing significant public benefit, enjoy no corporation tax exemptions and suVer significant tax costs. Their tax position is often worse than their commercial counterparts for two major reasons: — Their grass roots development costs are not always tax deductible; and — Tax relief for the capital cost of new facilities is very limited, being restricted to the plant and machinery element contained in the project. This can be contrasted with hotels (also part of the leisure sector), which obtain tax relief for the entire cost of new facilities. The reason why sports NGBs are eVectively taxed on their investment in grassroots sport and are, therefore, at such a disadvantage is because they have to fit into the general tax rules that make no recognition of the broader social and public benefit objectives that such bodies pursue (whilst some bodies are within the tax exemption for mutual trading, this does not always work to their advantage). These rules require that the taxable trade of the governing body must first be identified, and it is only the revenue costs that are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of that trade that are deductible for tax purposes. Hence, grants, development, governance and administration costs for grass roots sport often do not qualify in full for tax relief. This amounts to a tax on grass roots development which, given Government policy, is an absurd anomaly.

Registration as a charity to solve this problem is not an option for NGBs—this is explained in greater detail in Section 3 Sports NGBs also have little tax incentive to invest in new sports facilities such as sports stadia, grounds or courts. This is because of the very restricted tax relief for capital expenditure which is generally confined to plant and machinery allowances with no relief for the cost of the structure, eg the building or stand in which the plant and machinery is housed. Major events held at these facilities usually generate the profits which are then invested in grass roots sport and the lack of tax relief for the cost of these facilities means that, again, tax is removing funds from grass roots sport. This is in stark contrast to sports and leisure facilities at commercially operated hotels the cost of which (including structure costs) qualifies in full for tax relief. The eVect of these two issues, particularly the non-deductibility of grassroots investment, is that the eVective tax rates payable on the profits of NGBs are often significantly in excess of the statutory rate of 30% and higher than their commercial counterparts. At the extreme, a sports governing body which breaks even and makes no profit will find itself paying tax because of the disallowance of development costs. For example, if The Lawn Tennis Association Limited was to break even as a result of distributing all of its profits for grass roots development purposes, it would still face a corporation tax liability of between £2 million and £3 million.

2.7 The case for corporation tax exemption for NGBs Sport plays an important role in community life; the Prime Minister’s comments above summarise its contribution well. The role of NGBs is vital to all sports’ successful development; not only do they provide a regulatory, advisory and organisational structure without which individual sports could not exist, but they also raise significant funds, which are invested in grass roots sports through CASCs. The figures for the four major spectator sports for 2001 speak for themselves, ie over £100 million investment in grass roots, every year. The tax system is a severe handicap to the work of governing bodies, not only in terms of the tax burden they face but also because of the regulatory burden it imposes. Significant time and eVort is spent on corporation tax mitigation and compliance. Whilst it is possible to reduce the tax burden in relation to grass roots spending, eg by the use of a charitable trust46, the steps that need to be put in place are complex and unwieldy. This detracts from the eVective work done by governing bodies. Exemption from corporation tax for sports NGBs is therefore proposed. This would provide the following benefits: — Greater investment in grass roots sport, both in terms of its eYcient running and maximising sport’s investment in facilities; — Reduction in the regulatory burden; — The ability to build up funds for long term “capital” investment in sport, particularly in the grass roots, without surpluses being subjected to significant corporation tax;

46 See Governing Bodies of Sport—Use of charitable Status. Richard Baldwin, Deloitte & Touche, August 2003. 3049212025 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 64 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Motivational and promotional benefits for sport because the tax system would recognise the important role that it plays in community life and this would be evident to those supporting sport at all levels. These benefits to sport itself would enable it to be more eVective in helping Government meet its objectives in relation to health, education and social policies.

2.8 Technical aspects—the essential elements If Government is minded to oVer corporation tax exemption for sports NGBs, then the suggested essential elements of corporation tax exemption would be as follows: — Qualification for exemption should be granted to sports NGBs which are established to encourage, develop, govern or promote any sport or sports. — The type of organisation that qualifies could be an unincorporated association or incorporated entity under UK law; it should include overseas governing bodies that have a taxable presence in the UK and which would otherwise qualify but for their overseas residence. — The Memorandum of Association or Constitution regulating the functions of the governing body should preclude the payment or transfer to members of any income or capital on winding up, ie it should be non-profit distributing. — Eligible sports would be defined by reference to an agreed list (as with the VAT exemption granted under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 10 and the more recent CASC exemptions FA 2002 Sch 18). — The Inland Revenue would decide whether a NGB met the criteria, and if it did, register it for the purposes of the tax exemption, subject to the usual rights of appeal in the case of a refusal to register. — The exemption would be dependent upon the NGB applying its income and gains for the purposes of the development of sport; this could include the investment of core funds for future use for such purposes. — There should be no distinction between NGBs of so called “amateur” and “professional” sports; each should be judged on the above criteria. — For the purposes of Section 339 Taxes Act 1988 Charges on Income, donations to charity, consideration should be given to extending the definition of charity to include qualifying sports governing bodies. Section 508 of the Taxes Act, which provides certain tax exemptions and reliefs for scientific research organisations, may provide a useful template for the drafting of the relevant tax legislation. Clearly, any such drafting would be a matter for HM Treasury. It is considered that the income from promoting sport, eg international matches and tournaments, would be exempt in the NGB’s hands, but it may be that certain sources of income if the section 508 approach was adopted, would not be exempt. In that event, we would seek the ability for subsidiary companies to carry on non-exempt activities and be able make qualifying donations to the qualifying sports body thereby obtaining tax relief for those donations (see Section 339 definition above). This would enable the governing body to establish a wholly-owned subsidiary to conduct any non-exempt activities and gift aid any surpluses to the qualifying sports body in the same way as charities do under current law.

2.9 Potential tax costs The loss of corporation tax from the proposed exemption is unlikely to be substantial in overall Exchequer terms, probably less than £15m per annum. Indeed, there may be a positive impact on the Treasury’s tax take since the loss of corporation tax may be oVset by gains in other taxes as a result of more money being invested in grassroots sport which, in turn, would generate tax, eg VAT, PAYE and NIC. The average annual corporation tax paid by the four major sports governing bodies over the three years to 2000 is as follows:

Sport 1998–2000 £m Cricket 0.1 Football 0.4 Lawn tennis 5.0 Rugby union 2.4 Total 7.9

Source: 4 Sports, Deloitte & Touche Sport Analysis 3049212025 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 65

The tax provision in the accounts for 2001 and 2002 were as follows:

Sport 2001 2002 £m £m Cricket 0.0 0.0 Football 0.9 4.9 Lawn tennis 5.0 3.4 Rugby union 2.7 (1.9) Totals 8.6 6.4

2.10 Conclusion The NGBs of the four major spectator sports believe that the proposed corporation tax exemption will remove a major anomaly in the taxation of sport and have a significant and beneficial, financial, regulatory and motivational eVect on the development of sport, particularly at the grassroots in the form of increased participation. This in turn will help Government meet its wider policy objectives, notably health but also education, anti-crime and social inclusion. We recommend that Government gives serious consideration to implementing this proposed measure and we look forward to discussing this with HM Treasury.

ADDENDUM: GOVERNING BODIES OF SPORT—USE OF CHARITABLE STATUS

1. Possible Use of Charitable Status by NGBs As stated in Section 2.6 the use of charitable status to solve the tax problems associated with the non- deductibility of grassroots expenditure is not an option for the 4 Sports’ NGBs. This is explained in greater detail below. The promotion of sport itself is not charitable; this was reaYrmed by the Charity Commission in its Guidance Note issued on 30 November 2001 following its Consultation paper which was issued earlier in the year47. In particular, elite sport is not regarded as charitable, although the NGBs’ grassroots work in the community does have significant public benefit. Accordingly, NGBs have not registered and are not able to register as charities in the vast majority of cases (there may be one or two isolated cases where the NGB has historically been able to register on other grounds, such as the protection of the realm, but these are exceptional). The position under charity law and the Charity Commission’s current interpretation is unlikely to change so that NGBs will continue to be unable to register as charities. The Strategy Unit Report of September 2002 recommends that the advancement of amateur sport be regarded as a new charitable purpose but this is unlikely to be of help to most governing bodies, whose purposes and activities are usually wider than the promotion of amateur sport48. Whilst the Government has accepted this recommendation of the Strategy Unit it remains the case that even when it is implemented most governing bodies will be unlikely to be able to register as charities.

2. The Provision of Sport for Young People or the Community at Large Whilst NGBs themselves are not charitable, part of their activities may be regarded as charitable under two particular heads49. — The provision of sport and physical education for youngsters of all abilities may qualify under the charitable object of the advancement of education; — The provision of facilities for recreation in the interest of social welfare which are available to the entire community, may qualify under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. The Football Association Youth Trust, which was set up to encourage “pupils of schools and universities to play Association Football or other games or sports” was held by the House of Lords to be for the advancement of education50. The case, which was decided in 1980, provided a lead in enabling NGBs to establish independent charities to support their activities with youth. In some cases the objects of these charities have been extended to include the provision of sports facilities for the general public, which qualify under the second head above.

47 Review of the Register—The Promotion of Sport (2001). 48 Cabinet OYce Strategy Unit Report—September 2002 “Private Action”, Public Benefit—A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector. 49 Sport and Charitable Status—the benefits and how to obtain them—The Sports Council (1994). 50 CIR -v- McMullen and others (Trustees of Football Association Trust) and A-G 54 TC 413. 3049212025 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 66 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Thus, for example, in recent years the following have been established: — The British Tennis Foundation by The Lawn Tennis Association for providing facilities both for youngsters and the public at large. — The Cricket Foundation Charitable Trust by the England and Wales Cricket Board for similar purposes. — The Football Foundation, funded jointly by Government, The Football Association Premier League and The Football Association, again to provide facilities both to youngsters and to the general public at large. — The British Athletic Foundation, supported by UK Athletics to provide sporting facilities to youngsters. These charities are principally funded by tax deductible contributions from the NGBs that support them; the charity itself is able to make grants, provide coaching and generally support grassroots sport. Thus the NGB gets tax relief on its payments, which will be made under the gift aid provisions, and the charity itself will not pay tax on that payment provided that the funds are applied for charitable purposes. Whilst this approach reduces the adverse impact of the tax rules on the NGB and allows a certain element of its expenditure to be met through the charity, this solution is not wholly satisfactory since: — The charity is independent of the NGB and decisions are made by trustees over which the NGB does not have control, hence creating a risk of a lack of ‘joined up thinking’ in strategy and deployment of resources; — The Charity Commission monitors the expenditure of the trusts very carefully from many diVerent aspects; — In practice, there can be diYculty with the expenditure incurred by the charity since expenditure on the promotion of sport is not charitable and does not necessarily coincide with expenditure which the NGB itself would wish to incur; — The structure creates administrative and legal restrictions which are not conducive to the eVective running of the NGB and its support of grass roots sport.

3. Conclusion NGBs cannot register as charities themselves and whilst they can establish independent charitable trusts to meet grassroots expenditure under a tax eVective structure, this does not provide a wholly satisfactory answer. This is not least because it creates an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy and an increased risk of poor deployment of resources. A preferred approach would be to provide NGBs promoting sport with tax exemption in relation to the income derived from their activities provided the funds generated are applied for the purpose of promoting the sport.

Memorandum submitted by the Football Association

1. Introduction to The FA The Football Association is the Governing Body for football in England. The FA takes the lead in providing a structure for organised football, and is responsible for regulating, promoting and developing the game at every level, both on and oV the field. Specific activities include running international teams, organising cup competitions (notably the world- famous FA Cup), youth development, refereeing, coaching, medical matters and representing the English game internationally. The FA also establishes the regulatory framework for the game as a whole, ensuring that the Laws of the Game, agreed internationally, are followed at every level, and operates a set of rules and regulations for the governing of the game domestically. The FA, which is wholeheartedly committed to developing the game and increasing participation in football at all levels, promotes and leads on a number of initiatives aimed at improving and providing new opportunities for community football. As such, we very much welcome the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. A summary of the main points from this submission is on page 9.

2. The FA’s Role in Increasing Participation and Developing Community Football Football is the nation’s most popular sport. Football in England is as healthy and successful as it has ever been. The game has more participants than at any time in its history: — 7 million adult participants, plus 5 million children in schools; — 431,000 volunteers; — 37,500 clubs, including 9,000 youth clubs; 2,000 competitions; — 32,000 schools (17,000 primary); 45,000 pitches (21,000 facilities); — 30,000 FA-qualified coaches; 27,000 FA-qualified referees; 3049212026 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 67

— £320 million invested via the Football Foundation since 2001. The FA works to ensure that the professional game is attractive and exciting so that people of all ages and backgrounds are encouraged to play the same game themselves. The FA also works hard to develop diVerent forms of football which are appropriate to the demands of varying sections of society; for example, the current boom in 5-a-side football, disability football and the womens’ and girls’ game. Since the launch of The FA’s Football Development Strategy in 2001, participation in all parts of the game has increased greatly: — The number of females playing football grew by 53% from 2001–04. — The number of participants in disability football has grown by around 40% year on year since 2002. — Small-sided (5, 6 and 7-a-side) football has also grown rapidly, with around 5.7 million people taking part, an increase of 25% since 2002. Women’s and girls’ football has grown rapidly under the development strategy established and implemented by The FA. Football has become the most popular sport played by girls and women in this country, and there is a great demand among females to play the game. A survey conducted in 2002 by quantitative market research company BRMB has found that 85% of girls aged 7–15 in England took part in some form of footballing activity. As much as 65% of that age group were playing football at least once a week—a figure of 1.4 million girls, up from fewer than 90,000 in 1993. The FA is also working hard to ensure maximum levels of participation among people with disabilities. The FA first made a commitment to Disability Football in 1999, supporting the Ability Counts programme; in 2001, The FA committed £6 million to provide free coaching, equipment and training cards for all mainstream junior and Special Schools in England. The FA Disability Football Strategy 2004-2006 outlines key targets for the next three years, with the overall objective of becoming the world’s leading governing body in the development of disability football. There are currently 6 national squads: Amputees, Blind, Cerebral Palsy, Deaf, Learning Disability and Partially Sighted. The Learning Disability side won the 2002 World Cup Final in Yokohama, Japan, defeating Holland in the same stadium in which Ronaldo inspired Brazil to victory over Germany three months earlier. From 2004–06, the strategy aims to establish competition structures (local, regional, national); improve the quality of training, coaching and administrative support to disabled people; create performance pathways; support elite performers; and raise the profile of disability football. Football is by far the most popular sport in education, being oVered by 95% of schools in England. We are committed to sport in schools, through several initiatives based around raising standards, establishing community links, and providing competitions: — FA Charter Standard Schools is a national kite-marking scheme to support and reward schools using football to deliver key strategic objectives such as raising standards, out of school hours activity, young leadership development, school to community links and inclusion. 1,700 schools have currently received the award. — The FA TOP Sport Football programme is entering into its final phase. Over 9,000 schools and 12,000 teachers have been involved in the programme to support schools to raise standards in PE and Sport. — Over 500 FA coaches will be trained this year in partnership with Football in the Community to support teachers at primary schools to deliver high quality PE and Sport as part of the new FA AOTTS—PE and Football course. — Nearly 1,000 teachers in training have undertaken FA courses free of charge as part of ‘The FA Coaching for Teachers in training’ programme, organised in conjunction with Sports Coach UK and Institutes of Higher Education. Over 13,000 teachers have trained over the last two and a half years as part the FA teacher training programme. — The English Schools Football Association organises 20 National competitions for 13,171 teams from U11 to U18, individual, District and County teams. — The FA has received £800,000 of Government funding to deliver a high quality and sustainable Club Links programme. The FA School-Club Link Programme is football’s commitment to the delivery of the Physical Education and School Sport Club Links (PESSCL) strategy document, which sets out to ensure that all children, whatever their circumstances or abilities, should be able to participate in and enjoy physical education and sport. The programme is targeted at: — 39 County FAs; — 35 projects with a focus on disability; — Over 40 projects in rural areas; — Over 200 wards in the top 20% DETR indices of deprivation; — 20 projects in areas with high percentages of black and ethnic minority groups; — Over 100 projects focusing on girls’ football (additional to Active Sports); — 80 Junior Football Organiser’s leadership courses. 3049212026 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 68 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

3. The FA—Delivering Projects Funded by Public Bodies The FA has a great expertise and track record in successfully delivering projects funded or part-funded by public bodies. Examples include:

Projects in collaboration with the Football Foundation — In partnership with The FA, the Football Foundation has been very successful in providing funding to community football projects across England. The Foundation, which is jointly funded by The FA, the FA Premier League and DCMS, seeks to put into place a new generation of modern facilities in parks, local leagues and schools; to provide capital/revenue support to increase participation in grass roots football; and to strengthen the links between football and the community and to harness its potential as a force for good in society. — The Foundation’s Community and Education Scheme funds applications of up to £250,000 over a maximum of five years, to increase participation and volunteering in sport and to encourage the adoption of healthy lifestyles by creating opportunities for all. Priority areas for community and education funding are disability projects, ethnic minority communities, young people, social inclusion and education.

Case Study—Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council The Conyers School in Yarm is now providing a host of sporting opportunities for pupils, local clubs and the wider community with the backing of a £304,000 Football Foundation grant. The money has allowed the school to develop a floodlit, full-size, synthetic turf pitch which remains open for over 12 hours a day and throughout school holidays and weekends. As well as developing their current curriculum activities, the school has increased community provision and now over attracts over 2,000 users every week. Local clubs and primary schools are now using the facilities, which have also massively increased provision for female footballers, with over 350 girls now regularly playing on the new pitch. — While the Football Foundation funds these community football projects using the money allocated from its funding partners, The FA supports in the delivery of the projects, and particularly the long-term implementation and maintenance of the Community Schemes. From training ground-staV to maintain Foundation-funded pitches, to providing coaches to train Foundation-funded community teams, The FA plays a leading role in the community elements of the Foundation’s work.

UEFA Hat-Trick Project with ODPM The FA has recently secured partnership funding from both UEFA and the Government for its Hat-Trick regeneration programme, a three-year scheme that will see the appointment of 19 community football workers. Their role will be to provide a range of football opportunities for young people aged 7–16, while helping to address issues such as health, social exclusion and anti social behaviour. Following initial funding from UEFA, The FA won secured partnership funding of £3.4 million from the New Deal for Communities after successfully demonstrating how it could help deliver its education, health and social inclusion programmes.

Playing for Success Playing for Success is a Department for Education and Skills initiative established in 1997 by the department in partnership with The FA, FA Premier League, the Football League, their clubs and Local Education Authorities (LEAs). Through Playing for Success, the department is establishing out of school hours study support centres within top football clubs and at other sports’ clubs grounds and venues. The centres use the environment and medium of football to help motivate pupils identified by their schools, as being in need of a boost to help them get back up to speed in literacy, numeracy and information and communication technology (ICT). So far over 90,000 children have benefited from the scheme and over 100 professional sports clubs are contributing, including every club in The FA Premier League. A study support centre is also to be located at the new Wembley National Stadium when completed in 2006.

Work with the Department of Health The FA and County FAs are working with the Department of Health on a number of projects, using Department of Health funding combined with the power of football to achieve positive health outcomes and community sport benefits for targeted areas of the population. One example is Middlesborough FC, which has a full time oYcer funded by the local Health Education Authority, based at the Riverside Stadium. The health oYcer works in schools across the boroughs providing heath education sessions using football as a 3049212027 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 69

tool. This links in with the club’s “Football in the Community” scheme to provide football activity sessions, and their “Fit Through Football” programme to deliver a comprehensive healthy lifestyle programme in schools.

Wembley Stadium Wembley National Stadium Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The FA, is on budget and due for completion on time early next year. The Stadium, which is part-funded by a £120 million grant from Sport England, will be the biggest and best in the world, its matches and events providing revenue for the future of English football.

4. Existing Initiatives and Our Relationship with Public Bodies The FA has a good relationship with Sport England, and we work closely with them across a range of areas, from safeguarding sporting facilities to promoting physical activity. We do, however, have some concerns with their concept of Sport England’s Whole Sport Plan for football as it is currently being implemented. The FA welcomed the basic idea behind the Whole Sport Plan, and we still believe that it is a fine concept in theory. As it was first explained, this had the look of real progress in our request for a strategic relationship with Government and Sport England—in the same way as the other Governing Bodies, we want a more eYcient, eVective and joined-up approach to the development of sport. We shared the view of Government that governing bodies should have a plan for their sports from the grass roots to the elite level, and that this is what the public sector would invest in. It was a clear from our initial discussions on the Whole Sport Plan that Governing Bodies would take the lead in setting priorities and being responsible for delivery in their own sports. The Whole Sport Plan would also provide a simple process through which all the necessary accountability measures could be met. Also, crucially, there would be a way of creating measurable performance against which the success of the funding would be judged. While we welcomed these laudable proposals, the reality has proved to be very diVerent, as Sport England has developed the programme. We have identified the following fundamental flaws in the scheme’s development. — Whole sport plans were meant to be for five years—and that is what The FA has drawn up—but Sport England is now unable to commit to five years of funding. In some cases, the commitment to funding is only for one year, despite the costs requiring a much longer commitment. This looks like Sport England encouraging short-termism, as opposed to being the “modernising” force that we and the Government want them to be. — The Whole Sport Plan process has become overly bureaucratic, and is not in fact a “one-stop shop” funding system at all. — Whilst measuring return on investment is very important, Sport England currently appears to be using this to engineer the plan as opposed to measuring it. The result is too much reporting and not enough delivery. — The system represents actual reductions in funding when compared to previous lottery capital funding. — The legal paperwork is excessive and seems to be badly removed from the reality of the project as it was envisaged and agreed—already one governing body has received a fourth draft, bringing into question the very organisation of the scheme. The FA is committed to finding an eVective structure for sport, and we see the Whole Sport Plan as a useful solution if used eVectively. We want to work with Sport England and the DCMS to achieve our common goals. But we are becoming increasingly frustrated with the way in which the Whole Sport Plan programme is being implemented.

5. The Need for Government Investment in Football and Sport To fully reap the benefits to public health, social inclusion and community which football can and does provide, the Government needs to invest more money in the game in order to support more participants. The weakness of the current voluntary sports infrastructure is particularly acute in areas of multiple deprivation and this should be a focus. Resources should be used to support community sports clubs in addressing capacity and retention issues within a new culture of physical activity. Investment should be linked to the existing local sporting infrastructures, education institutions and community partnerships, rather than creating new structures. Investment in the first instance is needed to secure facilities for the participation base that the game already has. 3049212027 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 70 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

With the FA’s support, in 2002 The Football Foundation completed the Register of English Football Facilities (REFF), a “domesday book” of the country’s playing fields and changing rooms. This survey found a need for an investment of £2 billion in existing facilities alone, to bring them up to a reasonable standard for existing levels of participation not even considering any changes in participation rates or trends which are taking place in the game. This level of investment cannot solely come from the football industry, in the same way that the “elite” of other entertainment industries such as cinema or music are not expected to fund the grass roots of their trade. The contribution that football itself makes to the grass roots is very significant. Both The FA Premier League and The FA have donated £20 million each per annum to the Football Foundation in the last three years, and have committed further funding going forward. This investment in the Football Foundation has provided community projects worth £200 million—this is by far the most redistributive structure applied by football in any European country. The pertinent point here is that while the football sector itself makes the largest contribution to grass roots of any football sector in Europe, the contribution by central Government is amongst the lowest. Figures produced by the CCPR demonstrate that UK Government investment in sporting infrastructure is the lowest per capita of the major countries in Europe. In 2003–04 the DCMS allocation of funding for all sport will be £103 million. This equates to only £2 per head of population; less than half that invested by France. The need for investment in facilities and sporting infrastructure is already acute; to prevent meltdown in the provision of community sport, this investment needs to be made before it is too late.

6. Lottery Funding for Sports We understand that the Big Lottery Fund is planning to consult later this year on potential distribution streams for lottery funding. Lottery funding for sport, through Sport England, UK Sport and the New Opportunities Fund, has been absolutely crucial in helping The FA and other Governing Bodies to develop our sports. Any decision to remove or reduce lottery funding for sports would be hugely detrimental to football and all other sports, and would serve to reverse much of the good work we have been doing to increase participation and access to community football. During the forthcoming consultation, we will call on the Big Lottery Fund to increase the total amount of lottery funding which goes to sport. The Big Lottery Fund itself states that one of its key priorities is to “increase community participation in sport.” The public benefits of sport are well documented—not only in addressing a broad range of policy areas, such as ensuring a healthy population, fighting crime and increasing social inclusion, but in playing a unique, less tangible role in society as a whole. Few of the 26 million who watched England’s games in Euro 2004 would disagree. The Big Lottery Fund is also responsible for promoting schemes which fund volunteering. Football has the most volunteers of any activity or area in England—431,000 in 2004. Given that 2005 is the year of the volunteer, and that football has the largest number of any individual sector, we would like to see recognition of football’s role in encouraging, training and utilising volunteers in the Big Lottery Fund’s future distribution of lottery money. However, The FA remains worried about the levels of funding committed and distributed by the New Opportunities Fund, and we have grave concerns about the eVects of the bureaucracy holding up the distribution of NOF’s funding allocation in this area. In 2000, NOF’s Physical Education and Sport Programme allocated £750 million for sports funding in the UK. However, only £40.1 million of this had been spent by November 2004. More worryingly, only £22.42 million (under 3% of the overall budget) has been spent in England.

7. The Potential of the National Sports Foundation The FA very much welcomes the Chancellor’s recent announcement of a new National Sports Foundation (NSF), and we have been active in taking part in preliminary discussions of the structure and workings of the Foundation. It is our belief that the structure of the National Sports Foundation should follow the successful precedent of the Football Foundation. We believe that the terms of reference, funding structure and delivery mechanisms of the Football Foundation (FF) have been very successful, and would recommend this model for the National Sports Foundation. One key area of success in the FF, which should be replicated in the NSF, is the lack of bureaucracy involved in the organisation. We are also urging the DCMS to ring-fence for football the money already committed and pledged by The FA, FA Premier League and DCMS to the Football Foundation. We understand that Ministers are keen that the National Sports Foundation does not draw any of this funding away from football. As with the Football Foundation, we would suggest that the large sports Governing Bodies play a leading role in the development and management of the NSF. The FA and other major Governing Bodies have a great expertise at pulling in private sector funding (through the power and reach of football and other sports brands) and we can be very eVective partners for Government in achieving this extra revenue for sport. 3049212027 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 71

8. The Burden of “Red Tape” With responsibility for 12 million participants, 431,000 volunteers, 37,500 clubs and 45,000 pitches, The FA faces a considerable regulatory burden. This is constantly being expanded by a number of regulations, provisions and directions coming into force across a range of Government departments, which have a disproportionate eVect on The FA’s work. The following wide-ranging examples give a flavour of the regulatory threats we regularly face: — Application of National Minimum Wage to football’s volunteers and players: The Inland Revenue recently visited a small semi-professional club and requested detailed employment and attendance records for the last two seasons. An initial assessment has been raised on the club for payments under the NMWof several thousand pounds. The Inland Revenue is stating tha t, even though a club may be employing a player as a second job, there will be no exemption from the applicability of the NMW. Similarly, even though volunteers run a club on a non-profit basis, it will not be considered exempt from the requirements of the NMW. — Floodlights under threat from DEFRA’s Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill: The FA picked up a potential threat to floodlights at grass roots sports facilities in the Government’s Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. We alerted Ministers to this issue and, following extensive negotiations, the Government amended this Bill to allow sports facilities a specific and explicit defence if faced by legal action on nuisance lighting, as a threat to sports grounds was not the original intention. This amendment will prevent floodlights up and down the country from being switched oV, a welcome result, although the cost to The FA of achieving this outcome was great. — Security Industry Authority: The FA and other football authorities are currently campaigning to overturn the decision of the Security Industry Authority, a statutory body, to subject football stewards to their regulatory and training processes. This would lead to a huge burden of red tape for English football clubs, and could cost clubs around £5 million per year. — Licensing Fees: The recent setting of licensing fees for sports clubs by the DCMS will lead to a huge burden for thousands of clubs. For example, Northwood Football Club in West London runs 24 teams, including 17 youth teams, and currently pays around £5 per year for its license under existing arrangements. Under the new regime, its licensing fees will be 55 times higher at £275, a more than considerable increase. We would suggest that the Government needs to take a cross-departmental approach to ensuring that the regulatory burden for football and sports clubs is tackled, and that a consideration of impact on sport is made a condition of all Regulatory Impact Assessments for new legislation or regulations.

Summary of Main Points from this Submission 1. The FA is successfully developing participation in football at all levels, including girls’ and women’s football, disabled football and football in schools. 2. The FA has a great expertise and track record in successfully delivering projects funded or part-funded by public bodies. 3. The FA is committed to finding an eVective structure for sport, and we see the Whole Sport Plan as a useful solution if used eVectively. We want to work with Sport England and the DCMS to achieve our common goals. But we are currently very frustrated with the way in which the Whole Sport Plan programme is being implemented. 4. The need for Government investment in facilities and sporting infrastructure is already acute; to prevent meltdown in the provision of community sport, this investment needs to be made before it is too late. 5. We will call on the Big Lottery Fund to increase the total amount of lottery funding which goes to sport. The FA remains worried about the levels of funding committed and distributed by the New Opportunities Fund. 6. It is our belief that the structure of the National Sports Foundation should follow the successful precedent of the Football Foundation—ideally, the Football Foundation should be extended to take on the work of the National Sports Foundation. As with the Football Foundation, we would suggest that the large sports Governing Bodies play a leading role in the development and management of the NSF. We are also urging the DCMS to ring-fence for football the money already committed and pledged by The FA, FA Premier League and DCMS to the Football Foundation. 7. The FA faces a considerable regulatory burden. We would suggest that the government needs to take a cross-departmental approach to ensuring that the regulatory burden for football and sports clubs is tackled, and that a consideration of impact on sport is made a condition of all Regulatory Impact Assessments for new legislation or regulations. 4 April 2005 3049212028 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 72 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the England and Wales Cricket Board

1. Introduction The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is the Governing Body for cricket in England and Wales and is responsible for the sport from playground to test arena. The ECB’s vision is “To ensure that England becomes and remains the most successful and respected cricket nation in the world and to encourage the widest possible participation and interest in the game throughout England and Wales”. Since its inception in 1997 the ECB has brought together all aspects of cricket activity into a single game approach encompassing Women’s, Disabilities, Schools as well as the Professional and Recreational games. The annual turnover of ECB is £70 million per annum. Cricket has established an independent charitable arm, the Cricket Foundation, to which ECB donates £2.8 million annually to assist in the development of cricket within the 38 County Boards. The ECB is currently governed by a Management Board of 18 Directors, the First Class Forum with two representatives of each First Class County plus the MCC and the Recreational Forum comprising of the 38 County Boards. ECB is currently seeking to streamline its governance structure to a Board of 12 Directors and disbanding the First Class and Recreational Forum. The sport will be launching its strategic plan which runs through 2009 on 19 April 2005. In 1999 cricket was set a target of investing 5% of its broadcasting income in grass roots activities by Sport England. ECB has significantly exceeded that target. In 2004 cricket invested 16.1% of its total income in grass roots activities compared with 8% invested by Cricket Australia. The 2005–09 Strategic Plan for cricket will be built on four key pillars : —EVective Leadership and Governance. — Vibrant Domestic Game. — Enthusing participation and a following especially amongst young people. — Successful England Teams. The key theme of cricket’s strategic plan will be Building Partnerships due to the fact that with a turnover of £70 million cricket does not possess the resources to adequately fund the development of the sport through its own revenue generating activities. 80% of cricket’s revenue is generated through broadcasting contracts. The ECB’s Chairman is David Morgan and the Board appointed David Collier as Chief Executive from January, 2005.

2. Delivering Success The England Men’s team has recently risen to number 2 in the world ranked only behind Australia in Test cricket. This is a major improvement over the past five year period when the team fell to a ranking of number six in the world. The team has recorded four consecutive Test series wins and was voted the Sports Journalists’ Team of the Year in 2004. The England Women’s Team has enjoyed parallel success and is currently competing in the Cricket World Cup in South Africa where they are one of the favourites to reach the semi-final stage. ECB initiated the Super Fours Series for Women’s teams in 2004 and Women’s cricket in England and Wales is the fastest growing area of the sport. Cricket for players with disabilities in England and Wales is a world leader with Table Top cricket and the representative teams leading the cricket world. Another innovation introduced by ECB in 2003 was Twenty20 cricket. This brand of cricket enthused a new audience of families and young people to the game and this highly successful format has now been copied in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In the area of Cricket Development the ECB trebled its target for investment in grass roots cricket with a 16.1% investment in community sport and a further £5 million is invested annually by the Counties. Cricket has been lauded for the successful Club/School links programmes, the introduction of the widely acclaimed Howzat programme for schools, Kwik Cricket in Clubs and has one of the leading Child Protection and Anti Racism programmes in sport. The game has invested in a state of the art IT communication system between ECB and Clubs through the Club Based Management System (CBMS) which is currently under development. Cricket stadia in England and Wales are funded through local Counties and ECB has encouraged grounds to substantially upgrade facilities in recent years. New Stands have been built at the Oval, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge and Headingley. Lords has maintained its pre-eminent position as the most famous ground in world cricket. The Rose Bowl in Southampton and the Durham ground at Chester-le-Street have emerged as new 3049212028 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 73

grounds of International Standard. CardiV, Chelmsford, Derby and Hove have all installed floodlighting in order to play cricket during leisure hours for the convenience of spectators and there are exciting development plans being considered for Taunton and Old TraVord.

3. Public Body Funding Partnership funding with the public sector has delivered many noticeable success stories in recent years. Community Club Development Programme—this programme is the forerunner for devolved investment responsibility and accountability through NGBs. The programme has substantially reduced bureaucracy and red tape and ensured that Community Clubs receive the funding in a timely manner consistent with the Government’s and sport’s strategies. Sadly this funding for cricket has recently been cut by 40% from £3.13 million per annum to £2.375 million in 2006–07 and 2007–08 with no funding allocated for 2008–09. This results in the ECB investment in the infrastructure for the programme being less cost eVective. The reduction in funding is very frustrating for community clubs who believe that the funding of the programme is currently under-resourced and generates a time bomb in terms of facility provision. In the first year of the CCDP programme more than 100 clubs were supported including Bexley Cricket Club with £24,000 for artificial turf pitches, Chorley Cricket Club with £53,000 for practice facilities, Widnes Cricket Club £38,000 for practice facilities, Cleator Cricket Club £18,000 for Junior facilities, Hunslet Nelson £36,000 for a security fence and nets, Market Deeping £13,000 for a secure machinery shed and Wirksworth CC £32,000 for a secure facility and an extension to the boundary to cater for junior coaching. The Safer Sports Ground Programme—this programme has been exceptionally successful and has been one of the catalysts for upgrading facilities in our stadia throughout the country. This fund has recently been discontinued but ECB is most anxious that this decision be re-visited especially in light of substantial investments needed to enhance facilities for spectators with disabilities. Exchequer Funding—a highly valuable programme which provides support for the infrastructure for the sport including the National Cricket Centre at Loughborough. The NCC develops coaches and support staV and is regarded as the best facility of its type anywhere in the world. World Class Start, Stay and Succeed—in partnership with Sport England these programmes have supported the progression of our Youth, Women’s, Disabilities and Men’s representative teams. The recent results of England teams demonstrate the success of these programmes. Regional Development Agencies—cricket has worked closely with a number of RDAs to attract Major Matches and develop community programmes. In Durham the RDA has been supportive of the development of Chester-le-Street, in CardiV the RDA has encouraged the development of Sophia Gardens and in Nottingham the RDA worked on a study concerning the Impact of Sports Tourism on the Region. This study demonstrates the major role which sport plays in driving not only inward investment but also revenue spending on tourism in the regions. The preliminary results conclude that sport provides a very large multiplier of Return on Investment for the Government from Tourism alone before the Health, Education and Community benefits are considered.

4. Infrastructure for Sport in England and Wales ECB has been greatly encouraged by the vision presented by Government through Sport England and UK Sport last year for a simplified programme of funding, a long term (four year) funding cycle and more accountability as well as responsibility devolved to National Governing Bodies. NGBs welcome this accountability as it should result in greater funding flowing through to the grass roots as a result of less bureaucracy and alignment with both the Government’s and Cricket’s goals. ECB is anxious to pursue a closer working relationship with government and we do believe great progress has been made in our relationship with DCMS. Furthermore it is rewarding that the FA, LTA, RFU and ECB are working in close co-operation to provide a consistent voice for a number of sports in England. ECB seeks a strategic relationship with government to deliver a more eYcient, eVective and joined-up approach to the long-term funding of sport from the grass roots to elite level. We further welcome the policy of regionalisation and the support of DCMS in ensuring funding is devolved to local level. This mirrors the strategy of ECB to devolve more responsibility and accountability to our County Boards to deliver local solutions rather than a one size fits all solution. In the past year the working relationship with DCMS has been particularly helpful in ensuring that the Working Holidaymaker Visa legislation and also that Mandatory Rate relief be applied to community clubs. We are working closely with DCMS to seek modifications to the Security Industry Bill provisions and the Licensing Act which have substantial impacts on Clubs throughout England. We have asked the Secretary of State whether there is merit in an approach through Peter Mandelson to the EU to seek relief for professional sports from the Kolpak EU employment position which has generated a significant influx of players who are unqualified for England into our domestic game. We are concerned that this influx may have a long term detrimental impact on the performance of the National team and does not encourage the development of young England qualified cricketers. 3049212028 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 74 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

We are further encouraged by the opportunity which may be presented in the National Sports Foundation proposals and ECB will outline our thoughts on this proposal in Section 6 of our submission. The excellent strategy and policy agreed amongst a wide range of interested parties in sport and government sadly has not been reflected in actions recently adopted by Sport England and this has caused ECB significant concern. Having been strongly encouraged to develop Whole Sport Plans as a subset of our Strategic Plan for Cricket we have found that the Whole Sport Plan Process adopted by Sport England is at odds with what was originally presented to us. The WSP was promoted as a process in which the NGBs should set their priorities within a national framework, be responsible for delivery in their sport and be accountable to meet those measures. WSPs were trumpeted as being four year funding plans and a removal of red tape. However in the translation of strategy into action the oYcials, consultants and lawyers have altered the vision to such a degree that the current programme is unworkable. To summarise our primary concerns : — The plan has become bureaucratic and is not a one stop funding system at all. Funding will still need to be accessed from numerous sources, The Key Performance Indicator Manual is 25 pages in length and the contract is more than 50 pages in length. — The contract should be based on each individual sport’s Strategic Plan and agreed KPIs which is unfortunately not the case. — The measurement requirements originally planned would have cost more than the totality of the award to cricket (we are informed that the measurement of individual activity is now being reassessed). — The ROI criteria are being used to engineer priorities rather than measure performance. — Lottery income is reducing and the Whole Sport Plan proposals demonstrate a real cost reduction in funding to sport especially at community level. — Most significantly the four year commitment to funding has been reduced to a two year cycle which is simply not manageable to deliver long term Key Performance Indicators to which both our sport and the Government aspire. Although there has been significant evidence of a raising of the profile of sport throughout Whitehall it would be of great benefit if issues could be more closely integrated and their impact on sport more carefully considered. In the area of regionalisation this has been a source of concern as funds for local Sports Boards appear to be totally inadequate to meet the most superficial of demand. For example in the East Midlands we understand that the total budget for the Regional Sports Board is less than £2 million which cannot service the demands of one of the major sports in that region let alone all sport in the Region. There is confusion about priorities—we are informed that Sport England are being tasked with participation and that is their prime measure whereas UK Sport is tasked with world class performance. But does that model work for non-Olympic Sports? Devolution has brought practical diYculties. Cricket’s Strategic Plan has to be tailored to encompass Glamorgan due to funding from Sport Wales. But in cricket players from Wales and Scotland represent England on the world stage—for example Robert Croft, Matthew Maynard, Tony Lewis, Mike Denness and Dougie Brown have all represented England and two of these players captained England. The CCDP does not apply to Wales or Scotland. Nothing is more dispiriting to volunteers than excessive bureaucracy and complexity in seeking grant aid support. Clubs complain to ECB about the bureaucracy involved even in the CCDP programme which has been simplified.What is required is a one stop shop clearing house for all public sector funding available for cricket and this could be achieved through the Sports Foundation. Cricket has recently completed an audit of the minimum facilities required to deliver a community programme for the period 2005–09. The cost of artificial turf pitches, practice facilities and renovation to Pavilions over the next four years total £50 million. In addition £32 million is required over 4 years to deliver the DDA requirements within the Safer Sports Ground Programme. With a turnover of £70 million cricket cannot fund these initiatives alone. ECB has set up the Nat West Cricket Force which will mobilise over 600 Clubs and an estimated 50,000 volunteers in a self help programme over the weekend of April 2–3 conservatively estimated to be worth £15–£20 million worth of investment in club cricket. England Players and senior staV at ECB will be visiting local clubs throughout the country over that weekend to assist in the renovation of facilities. Cricket is investing £5 million in community facilities and Counties are seeking funds to invest £2 million per annum in the DDA programme. We are challenging Sport England and the Government to supplement those investments by adding £7.5 million per annum to the CCDP fund and £4 million per annum to the Safer Sports Ground Programme. Another hurdle which sport has to overcome within the current infrastructure is disjointed programmes. Sport is encouraged to create structures based on Sport England programmes such as CCDP and Active Sports. Active Sports has been a hugely successful programme in delivering community development 3049212029 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 75

programmes but has been discontinued. A new programme based on County School Partnerships is due to be launched but in the meantime sport is left with having to make redundant development oYcers prior to the launch of a new programme. Not only is this dispiriting for individuals but it is very costly to sport and destroys an infrastructure developed over a number of years. Surely medium term policies can be developed to avoid these situations which are currently unfair on NGBs especially the smaller governing bodies.

5. International Comparisons Unlike most countries with whom ECB competes stadia in England and Wales are not municipally funded and operated. A large proportion of cricket’s revenues in England and Wales therefore have to be geared towards capital projects. It is a matter of great pride that ECB invests double the amount on community cricket compared with our colleagues in Australia. We are also proud of our Cricket Foundation and welcome the Sportsmatch programme which is not available in most of our competing countries. The Deloitte report of 2003 entitled “Fit for Sport” drew a number of startling comparisons concerning the funding of sport in the UK with other similar nations. The year in which measurements were taken was 2000 when Lottery funding was at a peak. At that time the funding of sport in the UK was £1 per head. In the same year funding in Italy was £9, Germany £7.90 and France £5.20. Although comparisons could be drawn with the USA and Australia where the figures would be even more austere it was suggested that comparisons should be drawn in Europe due to the similar economic environment in the EU. In cricket we have outlined above the £82 million shortage in capital funding required over the next four years and we shall be urging all political parties to make a clear commitment to increased funding for sport in their manifesto. In Sweden the government has a policy of investment in sport as a pro-active remedy to health issues. It is diYcult to understand why in the UK £80 billion is invested in reactively treating ill-health and yet only £150 million is invested in pro-actively investing in sport as a partner to the health agenda. In cricket an investment of £80 million, should it be made available over the next four years by the Government, would be targeted on facilities and School-Club link programmes. It is pointless investing in Social programmes if they are not sustainable—facilities allow programmes to be continued and sport will invest as a partner to government in long term and prioritised delivery structures. The CCDP programme for an investment of just £5 million of government funds over the past two years has sustained cricket in 250 clubs—if that investment was £50 million it would sustain 2500 or 30% of the Clubs that exist today. The investment made by cricket in our Foundation of £2.8 million sustains 50 Development OYcers bringing cricket to inner cities and more than 500,000 children—a government investment of £20 million would enable us to reach 4 million people.

6. National Sports Foundation ECB commends the Minister of Sport for his initiative in bringing together Cricket, Football, Golf, Tennis and Rugby Union to consult on the role of the National Sports Foundation. Our sports already operate very successful Foundations and hence we can see the great value in this concept. What is needed is a step change to introduce new funding into sport. The Foundation could be that vehicle. In addition the Foundation should be a one stop clearing house for funding of sport. In this way NGBs and volunteers can understand a simplified funding stream with KPIs and accountability aligned with sport and government policy. The Foundation should include sports practitioners from the National Governing Bodies as well as Trust administrators and in this way layers of bureaucracy and administrative cost could be removed. The issue will remain over devolution but at least public funding for sport in England would be greatly simplified.

7. The Way Forward Sport is asking government for a fair hearing. At present government in the UK (according to the Deloitte report) benefits to the sum of £5 billion in net terms from sport. It receives an estimated £1 billion per year in incremental tourism spend linked to sporting events. Sports National Governing Bodies are taxed under a system which appears to be illogical and contrary to government policy. Government should make NGBs tax exempt to stop the inequitable and anomalous system where NGBs are eVectively taxed on their investment in grass roots sport. 3049212029 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 76 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

NGBs clearly understand the needs of their own sport and utilising those bodies in closer partnership with Government fits the Government’s stated aim of becoming a purchaser rather than a deliverer of services in the sporting field. We are oVering to work with government to slash the red tape and the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy which exist between government and the NGBs in delivering the sporting agenda. We wish to oVer to engage with government at a much earlier stage to help avoid the current issue with licensing procedures which will see costs for small clubs increase by up to 500%. Those procedures treat sports clubs as businesses, a position which is contrary to the CASC scheme, and one which fails to recognise the not-for-profit nature of the vast majority of clubs both professional and amateur in our sport. A good example of the impact of the changes to Licensing costs is Furness Cricket Club in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. At present a three year Club Registration Certificate for this Club costs £16. The Club is now being asked to pay £550—an increase of £534. Similar examples can be oVered regarding the need for closer involvement in policy making with the Security Industry Association (Licensing of Stewards), Inland Revenue’s interpretation of the National Minimum Wage in relation to volunteers, HM Customs and Excise interpretation of Partial Exemption, Clean Neighbourhoods Bill and the Disability Discrimination Act. It is to the DCMS great credit that issues raised by sport in these areas have been addressed in many of these instances but it would be helpful to pro-actively address these matters rather than to have to seek to amend legislation. We would urge government to fully evaluate the benefits of investing in community sport as part of the health agenda. Gameplan’s own economic model suggests that a 10% increase in activity levels would deliver a £500 million saving to the Exchequer. Sport is happy to sign up to delivering those increases in activity levels and to share the savings by requesting only £25 million of incremental funding for every 1% increase per annum in participation levels. In summary ECB wishes to play a full part in the Government’s agenda; We can assist in greatly reducing red tape and bureaucracy to ensure funding reaches the grass roots; Sport matters to people—millions play, watch and volunteer—the feel good factor when England teams are successful is a significant economic stimulant; Sport reaches minority groups and crosses cultural barriers; Sport can pro-actively assist in health, community and education agendas; Governing Bodies are best placed to deliver for their sport—make them accountable but give them 4 year funding to deliver and cut out the red tape between government and NGBs; Sport needs to be much higher on the national agenda with funding aligned with Italy or France; Sport has struggled financially as the Lottery Distribution has decreased (Sport England’s share of Lottery funding was £280 million in 1997–08, has fallen to £125 million in 2004–05 and is projected to fall to £105 million in 2008–09)—the lottery review must see sport remain as a good cause from 2009 with funding at least at 1999 levels; The Big Lottery Fund should recognise that in the year of the Volunteer sports’ volunteers need greater support from the BLF; Finally we trust that the Cabinet OYce Better Regulation Taskforce will review the compliance costs of government policies on sport and their member clubs. We thank the Select Committee for your initiative in reviewing the current status of funding for community sport and trust that ECB’s submission assists you in your deliberations. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Lawn Tennis Association

Executive Summary — In 2005 the LTA will invest £15 million of its money into grassroots tennis, this constitutes 49% of our annual investment in British tennis; — Investment geared towards increasing levels of juniors playing by 5% annually and modernising the club network; — Participation has grown hugely. 4.6 million playing tennis in 2004, up from 2.9 million in 2003. 500,000 kids between 4–10 now playing Mini Tennis; — Since 2000 we have invested over £13.5 million into over 100 facility development projects as grants or loans, creating 44 new indoor courts and 85 floodlight courts; — Investment has been on the strict proviso that the clubs work with us to become accessible to all, less elite and more welcoming; 3049212030 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 77

— £1 million invested into City Tennis Clubs to take tennis to the inner cities ensuring over 25,000 kids a week are playing tennis; — Mini Tennis now in over 700 clubs nationwide. RAWTennis launching this ye ar to build on huge numbers entering the sport at early teens; — Over 1,275 clubs oVered free days of tennis to almost 70,000 people as part of Play Tennis 2004. Now UK’s largest sporting participation event; — There are 2,750 trained and licensed coaches in Great Britain ensuring that anyone entering the sport receives a quality experience from it; — £1.5 million has been invested by the LTA over the past four years to create indoor and outdoor tennis facilities in 41 Specialist Sports Colleges and to allow 20 Tennis Development OYcers/ Coaches to work full-time in the education sector. 40,000 kids a year playing in national schools tennis competitions; — LTA received first ever government funding in 2002 with CCDP investment and 2004 with WSP funding. But we still face shortfall compared to other countries. It would cost £1.2 billion just to get to a similar level of indoor courts as France thanks to their local government investment programme.

Introduction

As the governing body for tennis in Great Britain, the LTA’s aims are clear. We are determined to ensure that this country becomes a great tennis nation again. To do that we need a vibrant network of accessible, aVordable clubs with juniors and performance at their heart, which is why everything that the LTA does now is focused on three key areas—performance, kids and clubs. We want to encourage more people to pick up a racket and have a go and to ensure that those playing the sport continue to do so. We have made great progress already and we remain committed to supporting and growing the sport of tennis at all levels throughout the country. As an association we remain one of the few national governing bodies fully committed to investing in both the elite and grassroots of our sport. This year we will invest £15 million into grassroots tennis. For the first time ever as an association we have also begun to receive government funding through both the exchequer and Sport England. The CCDP funding of £3.1 million a year for three years and Whole Sport Funding of £12.8 million will also be invested into key community projects.

Objectives

The LTA’s mission is quite literal: More Players, Better Players. At the most basic level we are committed to three broad objectives: — To increase the number of juniors playing the sport by 5% per year — To modernise and ensure a vibrant network of clubs, increasing by 5% per year — To identify, develop and support the most talented players and achieve six players in world top 100 by 2009. Supporting these broad themes, and outlined within our recent Whole Sport Plan submission to Sport England, are a series of key performance indicators. These form the framework for the delivery of our vision for tennis in this country and outline the ambitious targets that we believe will make tennis the most popular individual sport in this country by 2012.

Current Initiatives

To deliver these ambitious targets, we have a series of initiatives in place to deliver tennis at all levels of ability and age. We are committed to ensuring that tennis facilities are available to as many people as possible and that the experience of playing the sport in clubs, schools or local authority facilities is a positive one. We have worked hard in recent years to increase the levels of participation across age groups and the retention levels within the sport by making the sport more relevant, fun and accessible. And we have been successful. Participation figures are rising because of our grassroots work with 4.6 million people playing the sport regularly in 2004, up from 2.9 million in 2003. 3049212030 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 78 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Clubs

Club Vision Tennis clubs are the backbone of tennis in this country and have been the focal point of our work to make British tennis more inclusive and available for all. At present we have 2,683 aYliated clubs in Great Britain and they are supported by Club Vision, our club modernisation programme. Introduced in 2000, Club Vision aims to provide a robust framework for practical and financial support that is tailored to the needs of individual clubs. Since 2000 we have invested over £13.5 million into over 100 facility development projects as grants or loans. This has created 44 new indoor courts and 85 floodlight courts. Investment has been on the strict proviso that the clubs work with us to become accessible to all, less elite and more welcoming. Club Vision relies on fluid, constructive communication. It was created after an extensive consultation process with clubs, and the people who run them. Together, we’re looking at ways to get more clubs aYliated to the LTA; to increase and improve levels of coaching; to raise standards of junior and adult tennis; to spot and nurture exceptional talent. We need more and better facilities across the country if tennis is to really fire the public imagination—and for more than just two weeks at the end of June. Indoor facilities in particular are required and we face a huge gap in numbers compared to other countries. In France for instance, who have enjoyed sustained government funding, they have 5,000 extra indoor courts than us—a funding shortfall of £1.2 billion.

City Tennis Clubs

Tennis in the Community The LTA is committed to ensuring that tennis remains accessible across all levels within the grassroots arena. We aim to achieve this by developing sustainable partnerships with education, local authorities, Sporting Organisations and other national agencies that share the same core vision in establishing pathways into tennis clubs and non-commercial operations. For too long tennis has been perceived as a white, middle class sport. The LTA is determined that everyone, from all social and ethnic backgrounds, has the opportunity to play this lifetime sport. That is why we launched the first City Tennis Club in Hackney in 2001. There are now 27 nationwide from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Southampton and Bristol. The CTC programme focuses on the regeneration of park and school courts in deprived inner city and urban areas. It aims to give people the chance to play regular tennis in a safe, open and friendly environment for as little as £1 a session. The £1m in grant aid already invested in the 27 clubs has been money well spent. They have been a huge success in linking with the local community and schools. They have provided over 150 dedicated tennis courts in inner city parks and have between them fostered links with over 250 schools and eight Active Sports partnerships. The clubs have ensured that over 25,000 kids, from non-traditional tennis backgrounds, are now taking regular tennis sessions each week. With six additional local authorities in discussion to open further clubs, we will continue rolling out the programme in 2005. Already we are beginning to see a more representative mix of people coming into tennis, and we’ve enlisted some high-profile support to help continue the trend. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who is an oYcial ambassador to the CTC programme, hosted a reception at Downing Street to mark its second anniversary last year. Footballer-turned-TV host Ian Wright, tennis stars John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Venus Williams and Roger Taylor have also been actively involved and have hosted tennis clinics in London clubs over the last 18 months.

Coaching The importance of the tennis coach in the development of a club programme of coaching, competition and social activities cannot be underestimated. Creating more career opportunities for tennis coaches remains a target area for the LTA. The LTA Coach Database has over 6,000 qualified tennis coaches of which 1,115 coaches work full time (more than 30 hours a week), 1,157 coaches work between 15 and 30 hours a week and 2,543 coaches work for less than 15 hours a week. The LTA’s Coach Education programme currently oVers coach education qualifications across three diVerent levels to ensure coaching standards remain high and consistent. This structure will change in accordance with the United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC) and a five-tier structure will be in place by January 2007. Since 1996, the LTA has run a Coach Licensing Scheme (CLS), which operates as a Personal Development Plan (PDP) for coaches already qualified. Coaches need to gain credits to maintain the three year licence. There are 2,400 fully licensed coaches in GB of whom 262 are licensed performance coaches. 3049212030 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 79

Coaches remain an integral part of the success of any sport, and particularly tennis. At present there are 2,750 trained and licensed coaches in Great Britain ensuring that anyone entering the sport receives a quality experience from it. The LTA also ensures that all licensed coaches are CRB checked and cleared. Coaches play an integral role in attracting kids into the sport. That is why the LTA is working hard to ensure coaches come from all backgrounds of life and already over 850 (31%) of coaches are female.

Schools Tennis The most popular place for people to take up tennis is in schools. As well as attracting more players into the game it is important to retain those players and help them to fulfil their potential. Our focus in schools is: — to provide teachers, coaches and others working within schools and school sport partnerships with the right training, resources, and support to make sure pupils receive a sound, fun introduction to tennis, and — to provide links between schools, local authorities and clubs to help and encourage pupils to play outside of school on a regular basis in a club. Our school’s strategy is delivered through the British School’s Tennis Association (BSTA) which currently has over 3,680 schools as members. The Association aims to promote, support and encourage the teaching and playing of tennis in places of full-time education. The BSTA delivers tennis across the state and independent sectors. £1.5 million has been invested by the LTA over the past four years to create indoor and outdoor tennis facilities in 41 Specialist Sports Colleges and to allow 20 Tennis Development OYcers/Coaches to work full-time in the education sector. This includes support for specialist sports colleges. We are also working closely with government on school sport provision. Tennis has been selected to be a focus sport within the Physical Education School Sport Club Links project and will receive £750,000 of government funding over the next three years. Although the government funding is only for England, Welsh and Scottish schools and clubs will benefit from the products and resources that will be developed to support the programme. Finally, we have ensured good support for teachers and ensured it is very closely linked to the roll out of the new infrastructure. Training courses are delivered annually to primary and secondary school teachers and also to students in Higher Education. In the last academic year, 1750 primary school teachers, 550 secondary school teachers and 750 students attended courses. The approach is bearing fruit and we now have over 40,000 kids competing in our national schools competitions.

Kids The LTA believes that tennis clubs should be places where children between the ages of four to 18 can meet, enjoy themselves, and benefit from a positive introduction to the game. Once clubs become places where kids genuinely want to spend their time, junior programmes will blossom—which can only be good for the future of the game. The LTA refuses to fund clubs that do not share this ethos. The LTA has spent huge amount of time and resources in overhauling the sport at junior level.

Mini Tennis Mini Tennis, a version of the sport designed specifically for four to 10 year olds, was introduced in 2001 and has been a huge success. In GB there are now 730 Mini Tennis clubs, with over 500,000 kids playing this form of the sport and 12% of the target age group now play tennis regularly. Each LTA County Association has its own dedicated County Mini Tennis Coach to help continue this growth and support existing clubs and coaches. Mini Tennis has been a huge success at introducing new generations to tennis, it is now the second most popular sport for school kids under 11. The next challenge is to ensure they remain in the sport throughout teenage years.

RAWT ennis Participation “drop out” in early teens is a problem for all sports and is recognised by Government. The LTA has been very successful at getting new generations into the sport at young ages and is now concentrating on keeping them in the game. One of the main ways will be through the introduction this April of RAWTennis, a radical new junior approach to tennis for 11–17 year olds th at aims to address the drop out issue. 3049212030 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 80 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Designed after an extensive study into young people’s lives, RAWTennis wa s developed to attract and maintain young peoples’ interest in tennis. It will aim to develop tennis skills by focusing on the bits that young people enjoy the most: the game, the competitiveness, the individuality, the camaraderie, and is backed by an inspirational and interactive website.

Play Tennis To correct the perception that tennis is an expensive sport to play, we introduced the Play Tennis promotion in 1998—whereby clubs open their doors to everyone for a day’s free tennis and coaching. Thereafter aVordable programmes to maintain people’s interest are oVered. In 2004 over 1,275 clubs oVered free days of tennis to almost 70,000 people. Three-quarters of them had barely picked up a racquet before, and over 30% on non-members joined their local club after taking part. Now in its eighth year, the promotion has become the country’s most successful national sports participation event.

Progress and Moving Forward The LTA has made and is making huge progress in grassroots tennis. Participation levels across the board are rising and our initiatives are introducing and keeping new generations of kids in the sport. The launch of RAWTennis this year will undoubtedly build on this success. However, in comparison to other leading tennis nations we still lag behind in terms of government support and investment into programmes and facilities. While government money, until very recently, was not invested into the LTA, individual lottery awards for tennis were made. According to government figures, in the region of £90 million of lottery money has been invested in tennis since 1995. The majority of this was through local government investment and not directly to clubs or schools. After a lengthy campaign by the LTA in Whitehall, the perception of tennis began to be changed round by 1999/2000 as key initiatives were introduced, such as Mini Tennis, City Tennis Clubs and Club Vision, and began to make a diVerence in terms of encouraging new players and reforming the club network. These changes, combined with awareness raising in government circles has seen a change in this investment pattern. In 2002 the LTA received its first ever Exchequer funding, with £3.1 million a year for three years awarded to the LTA for grassroots tennis investment. This Community Club Development Programme (CCDP) money is now in its second year, with the first wave of this money being invested into new indoor and floodlight facilities throughout the country. This funding arose directly from the LTA lobbying campaign in association with the other four Sports. The LTA were then invited to submit their Whole Sport Plan (WSP) and state how we would spend any lottery funding. This invitation was made in the light that direct lottery funding to individual projects would cease and that all lottery money would now be channelled through NGBs. This was followed by an initial grant of £500,000 for 2004–05 and an additional £12.8 million of Sport England funding this year for the next four years via the WSP process. In addition an application for funding for the National Tennis Centre has been made. Of the £12.8 million, only £8 million could be spent as the LTA saw fit in pursuance of its WSP. This is to say £4.8 million was ring-fenced and could only be spent on specific projects that met Sport England requirements. While this award was welcomed it does represent a significant reduction in lottery money coming into tennis. While the LTA acknowledges that this Government is investing significant sums in school sport, it believes there remains a significant funding shortfall for sport in the community. In tennis alone the move to WSP funding from lottery funding has eVectively seen a 50% drop in investment into tennis. The LTA has made grassroots sport a focal point of its strategic mission and we have had huge success in recent years through sustained and strategic investment in community sport with participation levels rising significantly and tennis’s popularity amongst younger age groups increasing. A solid base has been put in place and with further support and investment from government grassroots tennis will thrive. 4 April 2005 3049213002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 81

Witnesses: Mr Francis Baron, Chief Executive, Rugby Football Union; Mr Brian Barwick, Chief Executive, the Football Association; Mr David Collier, Chief Executive, the England and Wales Cricket Board; and Mr John Crowther, Chief Executive, the Lawn Tennis Association, examined.

Q30 Chairman: Good morning, gentlemen. I believe behind our peer group of countries in terms of our you have a piece of evidence you wish to produce investment in sport. My cursory calculation based before the Committee and I think it would be very on Lord Carter’s report is that we are under- welcome if perhaps the piece of evidence could be investing against the average of our peer group by introduced with the witnesses. between £1–1.5 billion a year, so it is a very, very Mr Baron: Chairman, this is the William Webb Ellis significant under-investment in sport compared to Trophy. We were delighted to bring it back to our peer group of countries. We are delighted to be England, it seems a long time ago, in November here today. You are going to grill us, I know, but 2003, but it shows what sport can do and how it can there are certainly four issues which we will want to enliven the whole of our community and our country take the opportunity of raising: firstly, that critical with success on the field of play. issue of the need to make a quantum change in the level of investment in sport if collectively we are going to deliver on the Government’s ambitions; Q31 Chairman: Well, thank you very much indeed secondly, we have serious concerns about the whole for letting us see this; it is a real treat. sport process, the Whole Sport Plan process, and in Mr Baron: Could I just say a few words. We are our submissions you will have recent documentation wearing two hats today in a way and I just have a on that; we agree entirely with what the previous couple of introductory comments to make, if I may. contributors said in respect of bureaucracy and we Everybody knows my colleagues, John Crowther, believe that the Government has got to mount a next to me, Chief Executive of the LTA, Brian major assault on bureaucracy, and again Lord Barwick, Chief Executive of the Football Carter’s report yesterday has a wonderful chart on Association, David Collier, Chief Executive of the page 15 which shows how unbelievably complex the EWCB and I am Francis Baron, Chief Executive of delivery of government funding in sport is, and that the RFU. As I said, we are here today wearing two has to radically change; and, finally, we are pressing hats really; each of us primarily is here to present for what the Deloittes report terms the “unfair and evidence in respect of our own sports, but, secondly, illogical taxation of grassroots investment in sport”, we are here as members of what we call the “four where we are being taxed as sports on our investment sports”. It is an informal association that we have in grassroots and community sport. The RFU and formed to interface with government and to assist in the LTA in particular, if we just broke even in a year, the creation and implementation of government we would still be paying corporate taxation at the policy. I think collectively we feel we have got a rate of £2–3 million a year. That is ludicrous. significant impact on the delivery of sport in the Chairman, I have said a few words and can I now country. We account for 49,000 community clubs hand back to you. between us. We have 9.4 million regular participants Chairman: Thank you, Mr Baron. Could I make it in our sports collectively each week. Sport, as we all absolutely clear that we have no intention of grilling know, is a very important economic contributor. you. This Committee has a record of only picking on There are 400,000 directly employed in sporting people weaker than itself! activities, which is 2% of the workforce, more than agriculture, for example, and in terms of gross added value we account for 1.5% of the economy, again a Q32 Derek Wyatt: Speaking on behalf of the whole significant figure. We are also a big net contributor Committee, we shall sure miss you! I do not know to the Exchequer. It is not a fact that is often quoted, what the collective noun is for a posse of chief but the Cambridge Econometrics Survey showed executives of sports, but this is the first time, I think, that sport actually contributes, after government in history that we have had the four major sports expenditure on sport, almost £5 billion a year to the here. I know that some of you had to move meetings, Exchequer, so it is a very, very significant figure. We so can I say thank you for coming and thank you for all believe that sport is much more than that. We moving your meetings. It seems to me, from reading believe we uniquely have the potential to enable and your evidence, that you are increasingly frustrated assist implementation of a wide range of government that after eight years you have really still got policies, particularly in the key areas of health, of nowhere. Is that really your collective feeling? crime, anti-social behaviour and social inclusion, Mr Barwick: I think the issue here, and I think and we will present evidence for that hopefully Francis has already touched on it, is the ability and during the questions that will come shortly. I use the the power of sport and what we are looking for word “potential” for a particular reason and it was collectively is for government to further recognise it, covered a little bit by one of Nick’s questions in the and it has recognised it, but to further recognise just earlier session. We applaud the Government for very what it has as a vehicle for issues like health, social much moving sport in the right direction. I think we inclusion and education. My own sport, football, all feel that there have been a number of important 12 million people play it in some capacity, in some improvements in the Government’s approach to way, shape or form, and there are 431,000 volunteers sport, but we really are only scratching the surface of and those volunteers, and I believe it is the year of what can be done and I think we have to be rational the volunteer in 2005, are the highest volunteer and realistic about that. As to the investment in number in any genre. There are 38,000 clubs, there sport in England, and Lord Carter’s report issued are 30,000 qualified coaches and there are 27,000 the other day confirms this, we are way, way, way referees. The FA Cup Final goes to 160 countries, 3049213002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 82 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther four out of the top five audiences on television last the Whole Sport Plan. In February of this year we year were for England football matches, a total of 13 are informed that our Community Cricket million people went to football matches in England Development programme would be cut from £3.31 last season, and in fact last week 16 England teams million in 2005–06 to £2.375 million in the following of diVerent ages and gender played representative season, in the following year it would stay the same matches with 13 wins, two draws and only one and in 2008–09 it would go to zero. Now, that 40% defeat, which is pretty good actually. Therefore, funding cut is replicated amongst all the sports here what we are dealing with here, certainly in football today. On top of that, the Safer Sportsground and in other sports on my left and right, is the ability programme and active sports have gone, so the to get a message across, that it is a powerful medium funding for the ECB programmes by Sport England to get a message across, and I think what we are is projected at £6.4 million in 2005–06, £4.9 million looking for is just more recognition of that and just in 2006–07, £4.7 million in 2007–08 and £2.3 million more fundamental support. As a new boy on the in 2008–09. EVectively that information means that block, one of the things I have found is the number we would need to rewrite our strategic plan. What of acronyms I come across in terms of just trying to we are really looking for is help on a number of understand how government does fund sport and it practical issues. For a start, we need a four-year is really quite diYcult to track. commitment to funding which is aligned to our growth targets for community sport. Secondly, I think, as we have all said here today, we need a one- Q33 Derek Wyatt: But in a sense are you not really stop funding process. We need to get rid of the trying to tell us that you could do it better than we bureaucracy. We need to keep the performance can and that we ought to trust you more? That is the indicators that do not require the 25-page manual we essence of your complaints in your papers. have got or the 50-page contract that has been sent Mr Baron: Well, partly, but what we are seeking, and to us. We need more delivery and action, more in a way our frustration with the Whole Sport Plan playing fields, more bats and balls, not more reviews, process really revolves around this, is that we want more consultants and over-complicated legal to work in partnership with government. If agreements. We are encouraged, however, by Lord Government sets a policy, we want to assist in Carter’s present report and we agree that the funding implementing it. We bought into the Whole Sport process is confused. We agree that the sport needs a Plan process because we felt it was a new approach single-stop funding system, we agree that there and a new start which would actually deliver that. should be a cabinet of government departments to What we now fear is that it is not going to deliver improve co-ordination across all of our sports that, we are not getting one-stop-shop funding, we throughout Whitehall and we agree that investment are not getting devolved authority to invest is too low in sport. Now, the four of us here want to according to government policy directives, the add value to that, we want to work with government whole issue of bureaucracy is not being addressed, and we want to make that Whole Sport Plan process and we will no doubt talk about the National Sports a real success. We are prepared to act on that. What Foundation shortly, but again our concerns are that we want in order to deliver our mutual goals is less it was a welcome initiative, but is that going to be bureaucracy to allow us to focus on getting more another quango that we have to deal with, so we people to play sport. That is our role. have a number of legitimate concerns about how best, working in partnership with government, we can help deliver the government agenda and what we Q34 Derek Wyatt: In your contracts with your all want to do in terms tackling the health issues, the international sportsmen and women, what street issues, the crime issues and all the rest of it. percentage of hours a month do they have to do for Therefore, it is a frustration of the partnership not community sport? developing in the way we thought and hoped that Mr Collier: Again I can give you a very good it would. example which is that this weekend we have had 664 Mr Crowther: Can I add from tennis’s point of view clubs engaged throughout the country, we have had that we started the process when Kate Hoey was 50,000 volunteers and, just to give you an example, Sports Minister and we started this one-stop-shop there were 10,000 volunteers at the Commonwealth idea where we would go to a single form of funding, Games, so it is five times the amount of volunteers but I am still having to go to Sport England, we go were engaged in cricket last weekend. to Sport Scotland, we go to the Sports Council for Wales and we have now got all the regional boards Q35 Derek Wyatt: How many of the England team? to go to. It is an absolute myriad and it is actually Mr Collier: The England team, I was with Ashley extremely diYcult, coupled with the fact that we Giles myself at Harbourne, there was Matthew were promised funding for four years for the Whole Hoggard, James Anderson, Vikram Solanki, the Sport Plan and we are actually now only getting a whole of the Worcestershire team was out, and we commitment for one year and not only that, but they were at clubs throughout the country. There was a are actually demanding the contractual right to tremendous amount of goodwill. We not only withdraw the money or get the money back from us, engaged with those local clubs and local schools, but so actually the situation is very frustrating. Ashley was bowling at children, batting against Mr Collier: If I may add to that, Chairman, and give children, we had cricket roadshows, and it was you some specifics from the sport of cricket, we echo absolutely fantastic. It really enthused people, but, exactly what Francis said about totally welcoming above all, it acted as a substitute for some of the lack 3049213002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 83

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther of funding that we have had in recent years. That with there being too much bureaucracy and red tape £15 million value to club sport is absolutely in all sorts of diVerent areas, I do see the problem, incredible. Those clubs certainly thoroughly enjoyed how are you going to get round dealing with these the weekend. diVerent sports councils which represent the Mr Barwick: All professional footballers have it diVerent parts of the United Kingdom? written into their contracts as an obligation to Mr Crowther: We have to make the same contribute to the local community. For example, presentations to the diVerent governing bodies, so some of the England international players this week again this takes a lot of time and energy. From my have launched a testicular cancer awareness perspective, good practice, which was perhaps campaign and there was a literacy campaign last evidenced by Dan Bloxham a moment ago, which is week. Footballers have a significant role to play in something that is being rolled out throughout the terms of being good role models. Sometimes that country, is good practice whether it is in Wales, type of news does not make the headlines like other Scotland or England. You do not necessarily have types of news does. all the various governments believing in funding it. Chairman: I would like to place on record, as a From an LTA point of view, we have to team and Manchester Member of Parliament, my gratitude to label our funding to make sure that we take an our football clubs, who I name very carefully in appropriate approach across the country and this is alphabetical order, Manchester City Football Club why we are really saying from a delivery point of and Manchester United Football Club, for the work view that we really do need a one-stop shop when it they do in my constituency and I am sure my comes to funding. colleagues will echo that from their own experience. Q39 Alan Keen: It is great to see you getting together Q36 Michael Fabricant: I was very interested in what at that top level. We have listened to the points you you were saying regarding bureaucracy and the lack have made and I am sure we all accept them. I am of one-stop shops. You were saying that recently you a great believer, as I mentioned when Peter were led to believe this would not be the case when Baveystock was before us, in our local sports forum you were talking to Kate Hoey. I was wondering to and bringing clubs together. Are there any initiatives what degree you have had discussions similar to the that we can take and that you can help us with to link ones that you have just been describing, rather clubs together? You might have a rugby club that forcibly, to us with either Dick Caborn, Estelle has three pitches and a space for something else there Morris or Tessa Jowell. Do they know your views? but they have not really thought about using it Mr Crowther: Yes, they do. We are very pleased that because they were struggling to manage the club in Lord Carter has invited us to go and see him on the best way they can. Are there any initiatives you 14 April. The four of us will be going to see him and have got to try to bring multi-sports clubs together? we will be expressing quite formally the views that Mr Collier: Nottinghamshire Cricket Club have we have expressed here today. been working with what used to be the old Boots Mr Baron: I think the whole sport plan process V sports ground when the corporate body felt that they started o a couple of years ago. We were could not keep up that facility and that is now emphasising to the DCMS the fact that we needed to soccer, hockey and cricket all working together, it is tidy up the bureaucracy, we needed a one-stop shop a fabulous facility and I think that that club and approach and we bought into the Whole Sport Plan Nottinghamshire should be proud of that facility. process because we thought and believed it was Mr Barwick: The Conyers School in Yarm, with a going to deliver that and I think Sport England also £304,000 football foundation grant, were able to felt it was going to deliver that, but sadly it has not. build a floodlit, full-size, synthetic turf pitch which is now open 12 hours a day and that has increased Q37 Michael Fabricant: One of the examples you community provision and usage by over 2,000 users gave, if I can play devil’s advocate, was the every week and 350 girls are now playing regularly complications of dealing with Sport England and on it. So there are initiatives out there. Wales and Scotland. You accept, of course, that Mr Baron: We are doing exactly the same through whilst we are a nation of diVerent kingdoms, we are the Rugby Football Foundation where we invest in a United Kingdom. How do you get round that all-weather surfaces and these are multi-sport problem? Is it not only fair that Wales should have surfaces. I was at the opening of the Macclesfield all- some influence on how their money is spent and weather surface recently and the reports have been Scotland and so on and so forth? fantastic since it opened. Kids playing a whole Mr Baron: You have got a mixture of English, Welsh variety of sports are now utilizing that. With these and British represented here. The RFU is England all-weather surfaces we are seeing it generates only and we only deal with Sport England. It increased participation and usage of the club. It is an exemplifies some of the diYculties that sport in the incredibly eVective form of investment and we have UK has because there are so many diVerent bodies been able to do it partly because the Government now involved and some of us have coverage outside introduced the CCTB funding, we got our share of of England. John, you have got particular issues. the £60 million Exchequer funding, but it shows what return can be made by Government if you do Q38 Michael Fabricant: Before you make your invest significant and appropriate sums of money in particular issue, I really just want to focus in on this the provision of modern facilities which attract because while I have considerable natural sympathy youngsters and keep them involved. 3049213002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 84 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther

Mr Crowther: A good example we have is in South Mr Barwick: One of the messages coming over loud Leeds where we have just introduced one of our new and clear is just the volume of people who are city tennis clubs. We have got 27 city tennis clubs participating in sport, be it playing or actually around the country, many in your constituencies, for watching or administrating it. It is an opportunity example in Manchester. This is a great example not to be lost by the other side of this table. Sport is where there has been a partnership between a real passion in this country. I was in Sydney on the basketball, football and tennis and actually we have evening England won the Rugby World Cup and it developed an attractive recreational area within the was a fantastic moment. Whether you like or love city environment which gets kids to come and play. sport, it was truly a wonderful nation embracing At the end of the day we are in the business of moment. That is what sport can give you. attracting kids into our sport. Kids have got so many other opportunities these days. They are not just going to play sports unless they are introduced to them. Also, 48% of kids who start tennis try tennis Q42 Mr Hawkins: I was very worried to hear about at their schools and that is why getting this school the dropping to zero in 2008 of the community club link is absolutely vital to the success of our cricket grant funding. What justification was oVered game. Once we get the kids into our clubs we have when you challenged this on behalf of cricket, V got to keep them there because the drop-o rate is David? unacceptable. This is why we have got to make the Mr Collier: As has been said earlier, we have got a club facilities economic, but they have got to be in meeting with Lord Carter on April 14 and clearly places where kids want to hang out. that will be one of the topics that we will be Mr Barwick: For example, there have been three exploring. I think one of the things that we were areas of growth in football. Since 2001 participation surprised about was some of the announcements of in women’s and girls’ football has gone up by 53%. funding prior to us all launching our strategic plans. The Chairman might be interested to know that the For instance, in cricket we are launching our opening game of Euro 2005 is in Manchester City strategic plan, which is all embracing, on April 19 Football Club and the whole Tournament is going to and that will be a plan where we are talking about be held in the north-west of England. That is a real building partnerships from the playground to test landmark event for the women’s game in this arenas, so it is right from the league programmes country. The FA has spent £6 million on disability through to all of the grass-roots programmes. football. Disability football participation has grown Clearly things like the Community Development by 40% each year since 2001. Small sided football Programme are absolutely critical for us and so is the has come in and increased by 25%, that is five, six Safer Sports Grounds Programme, so it is a and seven-a-side football on the type of facilities my continuum between the Active Sports Programme colleagues have mentioned, artificial pitches, under and whatever replaces it. Those are the sorts of flood lighting in the evening. It has become a keen initiatives that we need to explore, but we do need a and central social activity for a lot of people. total step change in the funding. For instance, if we are talking about £7 million a year, that is £150,000 a county. That is not going to make a step change in Q40 Alan Keen: There seems to be little organisation our funding. If we talk about £20 million, for each of in this country of veteran sports. Have you any us that is one County Development OYcer per thoughts on that? My theory is that you should be county. We need to make a real step change if we are able to encourage people to play sports for longer— going to address the obesity agenda and if we are and you will not lose administrators and coaches— going to address the social agendas that I think is in and they have usually got a surplus of cash rather our mutual interests to do so. than a shortage of cash that people have in their twenties and maybe their thirties when they have got young families. I still play football and cricket. When I lose my pace and agility, should I play tennis? Q43 Mr Hawkins: I completely agree with you about Mr Barwick: What position do you play? that. There is one other issue that I would be grateful if any or all of you would comment on, which is the worry I have had over all my years in Parliament Q41 Alan Keen: I am a full back. that it is quite often easier to get money, particularly Mr Collier: There are a growing number of veteran since the introduction of the National Lottery, for sides in all sports. I think one of the issues we have new capital facilities, bright new buildings that found is that, as veteran sides agree, those people everybody can happily pose in front of when they are who are normally the very same people who will be launched, but the revenue funding is often a coaching, umpiring, and supporting youth sides, can problem. What I have noticed in constituencies both do both? I think one of the great developments that in the north and in the south is that after a while, if have happened is what we call “badger” sides in the burden then falls on hard pressed small local diVerent sports, which is a mix of youngsters and authorities, it is very diYcult for those facilities to be veterans. That is where the people who can put back kept up. Would you agree with me that what you into the game at veteran level are working with the need is not only the continuity of funding in the long- youngsters as well and I think that is a tremendous term planning over at least four years for the sports initiative that needs to be encouraged. nationally, but you also need the opportunity for 3049213002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 85

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther revenue funding of facilities to be seen as just as Exchequer and so on. Some people watching this important, if not more important, than the provision might feel that it has been a bit of a whinge from you. of the new capital costs? As big business should you not be putting more into Mr Barwick: In football, for example, 75% of it is community sport because it is very well to say if we played on public pitches, that is actually a total of were to catch up with France in terms of indoor 45,000 pitches. In 2003 the Football Foundation and provision we would have to pay £1.2 billion, but the the FA did a Domesday Book survey and worked French taxpayer pays 47% in taxes and you are out that it would cost something in the region of £2 arguing that you should be exempt from corporation billion to bring those pitches and the changing tax? I just wonder quite what your real contribution rooms and the accommodation that goes with them to community sport is. up to scratch to keep them level and useable. That is Mr Crowther: One hundred per cent of the profits how far the step change needs to go in my sport. that we get from the Wimbledon championships are Mr Baron: I think the point you make is a very good re-invested back into British tennis, of which one. You cannot have capital without revenue approximately 50%, £15 million, was invested in expenditure but, equally, there is no point in community sport. We can show justification as to allocating revenue expenditure if you have not got why we think the LTA is doing the sort of job it the right facilities to attract people, so the two go should be doing with community sport. Let me just together. Following on from what Brian said, in our add a point on taxation. I think one of the arguments written evidence to this Committee we have, as far as that we would say is that in health at the moment my Rugby Union is concerned, estimated that we need, understanding is that the under-spend in the health in investment in facilities terms, something like £400 department was greater than the whole budget in million over the next eight to 10 years. That is a scale DCMS last year. At the moment the Department of of investment that we know we need to make a V Health spend £1 on prevention and £80 on cure. If di erence in terms of participation and all the other they were to spend £4 on prevention, that is where we things. In our sport women’s rugby is growing very say sport and physical recreation comes in, they strongly, but as more and more clubs start up would only have to spend £65 per head on cure. It is women’s sections clearly you need to invest in the that type of message that we wish to get across. facilities because you need separate facilities for the Mr Barwick: Football is often looked upon as a obvious reason. We cannot extend the programme wealthy sport. I think it is important to point out of inclusiveness or widen the base of our sport unless we do have this commitment to significant long-term that English football does more than any other investment in the sport. Going back to the nation in Europe to re-distribute its money around frustration point, when you are asked to produce a the game. If you look at our competitors in Italy and four year whole sport plan inevitably you are talking Spain, for example, we are way ahead in terms of re- about long-term programmes to deliver your distribution. The contribution that football itself objectives and when the response is “We will give makes to grass-roots and community sports is very you one year’s money” it just makes a joke of the significant. The FA and the Premier League have system. You cannot have a long-term plan with no both given £20 million per year to the Football long-term funding commitment. We are all wasting Foundation since 2001. The FA Cup prize and TV our time in producing the documents. funds distributed £22 million to clubs last year, both Mr Crowther: From a tennis point of view, just to get grass-roots and professional. parity with France on the number of indoor courts we need £1.2 billion and at the current rate of Q45 Chris Bryant: Can you give the percentage funding it is going to take us 133 years. I know a lot figures that that represents? of people just think of Wimbledon for two weeks of Mr Barwick: Of the industry? the year but tennis is a 12 month sport and we do need indoor courts. The importance of revenue funding that you make is a very good one. We have Q46 Chris Bryant: Yes. built, in partnership with 53 local authorities, indoor Mr Collier: I can give you the percentage figures for tennis centres around the country since 1986 and in cricket. We were set a target in 1999 of 5% of our each particular indoor tennis centre we have a tennis funding going directly back into grass-roots and Y development o cer. Revenue has to go hand in community cricket. That compares with the 8% hand with capital. invested by Cricket Australia, for example. As of last Mr Barwick: I think there has to be, as we have year, 2004, ECB and cricket invested 16.1% of our properly illustrated across the table, a huge step total income into grass-roots and community change in investment. programmes. So we have more than trebled the target we were set and we have more than doubled Q44 Chris Bryant: It is great to have the William the amount that Cricket Australia puts in. We are Webb Ellis trophy sitting there, although I see it as trying to self-help. You are absolutely right, we want something of a provocation. I do not draw the same to help. The plan that we are launching on April 19 conclusion as Mr Baron. The words that spring to will further show what we are doing for community mind are more “How the mighty have fallen”. There sport and what we are doing at the top end for seems to me to be two things that you have in successful England teams because those two also go common. One is that you are all big businesses. You together. Without a successful England team we do talked about the £5 billion that you contribute to the not encourage the next generation. 3049213002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 86 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther

Q47 Chris Bryant: That is my concern. I look at all staying with the game and we are incredibly proud the community clubs in my constituency and some of this. We do think that being able to host Euro of them are not represented because the most 2005, an eight-team tournament, which we hope successful one is the Rhondda Rebels who have won England will do very well in, will be a further all the women’s basketball competitions for years landmark for the game. This is a game that is open now. The struggles that they all have are often not to both genders and the women and the girls who only with the local authority, they are with you, they play in it are playing in big numbers. are with the governing bodies, and they find you Mr Collier: We are incredibly proud that when ECB overly bureaucratic, overly interested in commercial was structured we fully integrated the women’s game success rather than anything else. into ECB. As we speak the England women’s side is Mr Baron: As far as the RFU is concerned and playing Australia in the World Cup semi-final in rugby in England, I think, firstly, financially we are a Potchefstroom in South Africa and I understand the small organisation, not a big organisation and if you Minister is there at that match. In terms of growth look at the balance sheets of the RFU, LTA, FA and of the game, we have grown from 367 women’s ECB, you would be surprised to see how small we are teams to 431 in the last year, that is nearly 20% financially. We do not have large financial resources growth. There is a further growth anticipated of that and reserves of the scale needed to make the step number going forward this year. So clearly it is the change we are talking about in terms of investment fastest growing area of our game. into sport going forward. In terms of our sport, we Mr Barwick: There are over 7,000 female football allocate every penny, other than small reserves that teams. we keep in our balance sheet, to investment in the Mr Crowther: We have about 4.6 million playing the development of community sport and community game every year of which 42% are women. The gain. We ring-fence that amount of commercial problem with girls/women is the fact that they do revenues that goes to the professional end of our drop out of sport earlier than boys and they drop out game, the Zurich Premiership, and they only get faster. We think one of the reasons is that we do not access to the television money that the league have enough women professional coaches. We have generates itself and a small proportion of central 2,500 professional coaches of which 33% are women revenues which is related to England internationals and that is an area of opportunity for us to and sponsorship. Last year our turnover was encourage more women to come into professional £70 million. Of that £70 million, only about £8 coaching as a career. million goes into “elite” sport and the rest is targeted Mr Baron: Rugby is slightly diVerent. We have a at the investment programme and expenditure to separate governing body for women’s sports at the support the community game. moment, although we are talking about merging women’s Rugby Union with the RFU, but it is again, from a very low base, a rapidly growing sport. Q48 Chris Bryant: You may recall in my grammar The problem that many community clubs have is earlier on I said there were two things that united that they need additional investment in facilities to you and the other is that you are four of the big be able to cater for the requirements of the women’s sports that are predominantly played by men. section. Worldwide female rugby is growing very Tennis is getting closer but it is still a higher rapidly, particularly in North America and it is now percentage is men than women. There is only one very much on the agenda of the International Rugby sport in Britain which is equally participated in by Board to encourage and assist the development of women and men and that is swimming, and we did a women’s rugby globally and we are playing an active separate inquiry on swimming some time ago. I just part in that. wonder whether you would like to say something about the fact that 37% of men in Britain participate in sport of some kind to an active degree and only Q49 Chris Bryant: The other bit I asked is that you 24% of women participate. It is equally important are the big four of four sports which are we get women engaged. I wonder what you do to predominantly participated in by men. I just wonder increase participation by women because my whether you would think of bringing in swimming women’s rugby clubs locally have had terrible and athletics in as two sports which are equally diYculties in gaining acceptance by the WRU. participated in by men and women. Would you consider inviting a couple of the other Mr Barwick: This is an open number. It could be, sports that have wider participation amongst four, five, six or even 11. It happens to be four today. women into your big four group, as you called it Mr Crowther: We started this because we felt that earlier? the voice of the sports lobby was poor. Mr Barwick: Certainly the Football Association and football in general is incredibly proud of the growth Q50 Chris Bryant: A point we have made before as in the number of women and girls playing football. a Committee. I went to see the senior team play Italy at Milton Mr Crowther: When you look at the funding that Keynes three weeks ago, a game England won 4-1 arts had had traditionally over the years, we felt and great preparation for Euro 2005. I spoke to the sport had to get its act together. We decided that coach after the game, Hope Powell, and she was saying “4 sport” to begin with was a way of making enthusing at the growth in the level of interest in the sure we could get together, because we are game, the level of growth in participation, quality, reasonably busy individuals travelling here and skill, talent, and girls coming to the game and there and the larger the group the more diYcult the 3049213002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 87

5 April 2005 Mr Francis Baron,Mr Brian Barwick,Mr David Collier and Mr John Crowther meetings and it is more diYcult to come out with a test grounds. I think that was a tremendously consensus and a single voice. We are not ruling out rewarding day. We operate all the diVerent sides other people joining what we like to call the four through all diVerent levels. We have a specific sports. We speak on behalf of sport. This is not just responsibility in that area that we deliver and a group that is just thinking about themselves. discharge and again it is an area that we are very proud of. Mr Crowther: Likewise, wheelchair tennis. It is a Q51 Chris Bryant: One of the most heart warming game that is totally integrated into the game of groups I have been to visit recently is called the tennis and the able bodied can play the disabled. The Rhondda Polar Bears which is a swimming group wheelchair tennis player has two bounces. The for people with disabilities; in fact, it is the largest in numbers are still small. Certainly from my Wales. Sometimes sport can seem very distant for perspective it is an area that we should look to people with disabilities because it seems to be about concentrate on more. something that is inaccessible. I just wonder whether Chris Bryant: Can you do the two bounces rule for there is more room for work in that environment those who cannot co-ordinate hand to eye as well! because disabilities range in lots of diVerent ways Chairman: Since Chris Bryant has mentioned our and sport can be a great equaliser in many ways. swimming inquiry and pointed out that swimming is Mr Barwick: The FA has six international squads the most popular sport among girls and the second for disability football: blind, partially sighted, deaf most popular sport among boys, I am going totally and hearing impaired, cerebral palsy, learning to step outside my position in this chair to ask a disabilities and amputees. There has been a 40% rhetorical question which I do not expect any of you growth in participation since 2002. I am due to go to four gentlemen to answer and that is: “When is the a game in a fortnight’s time. It is fantastic to see the Heritage Lottery Fund going to hand over to level of enthusiasm that these people bring to it and Victoria Baths in Manchester the £2® million it won they are very proud to wear the shirt with the three on the Restoration programme on BBC2?” It has not lions on. yet seen one penny! Jim Wright in my constituency Mr Collier: I think that is mirrored in cricket. One of wants to know! Gentlemen, thank you very much the most rewarding days I had was the tabletop indeed. It has been a real treat to have you in. Thank disabilities programme which was held at one of our you for letting us see the cup.

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Summary The Government welcomes the opportunity of this inquiry to set out its policy on Community Sport and the progress that has been made against existing initiatives to encourage greater participation in sport and physical activity across all our communities. The Government set out its long term strategy for sport in Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives. The long-term vision for sport and physical activity by 2020 is “to increase significantly levels of sport and physical activity, particularly among disadvantaged groups, and to achieve sustained levels of success in international competition.” Getting the nation active is therefore high on the Government’s agenda. The Government’s commitments to increasing participation in sport and physical activity have recently been set out in two publications, firstly, in Choosing Activity: a physical activity action plan and in the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s Five Year Plan. The Government is concerned at the impact that physical inactivity has on health and disease and is committed to increasing levels of participation in both children and adults and particularly amongst priority groups. We know that adults and children are not suYciently active for maximum health benefits. At present, only 37% of men and 24% of women are suYciently active to gain any health benefit. Three in ten boys and four in ten girls aged 2 to 15 are not meeting the recommended levels of physical activity. Participation in sports and exercise varies by age, sex, social grouping and ethnicity. For example: — Men in managerial and professional, and intermediate households reported higher participation in sports and exercise (45–49%) than those in the remaining three categories (30–35%). — In both men and women and in all age groups, low educational attainment is associated with higher levels of inactivity. — The proportion of people engaging in physical activity also declines with age and particularly after the age of 35. The Chief Medical OYcer sets out a very compelling case for the health benefits of physical activity. Besides the human costs of inactivity in terms of mortality, morbidity and quality of life, the report estimated the cost of inactivity in England to be £8.2 billion annually. This does not include the contribution of physical inactivity to overweight and obesity. 3049212031 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 88 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

The Government has set out its physical activity priorities in the following Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets. We will: — by 2008, increase the take up of cultural and sporting opportunities by adults and young people aged 16 and above from priority groups51 by increasing the number who participate in active sports, at least 12 times a year by 3%, and increasing the number who engage in at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity level sport, at least three times a week by 3% (DCMS); — enhance the take up of sporting opportunities by 5–16 year olds so that the percentage of school children in England who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum increases from 25% in 2002 to 75% by 2006 and 85% by 2008 in England, and to at least 75% in each school sport partnership by 2008 (DCMS, DfES); and — halt the year on year increase in obesity among children under 11 by 2010, in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole (DCMS, DfES, DH).

School Sport 1. Between 2004 and 2008 Government investment to deliver the PE and school sport strategy will total £978 million (DfES/DCMS combined funding). When lottery funding to enhance school sports facilities is added, the investment in the five years to 2008 tops £1° billion. We are on track to deliver the joint target with DfES. The 2003–04 school sport survey—in which 6,500 schools took part—found that 62% of pupils in partnership schools already spend 2 hours in a typical week on high quality PE and school sport. 54% of schools are now in a School Sport Partnership. 2. However, we believe we can and should be even more ambitious. The Prime Minister therefore announced, on 14 December 2004, that by 2010 our ambition is to oVer all children at least 4 hours of sport every week. This will comprise of: — at least 2 hours of high quality PE and sport at school—with the expectation that this will be delivered within the curriculum; and then — at least an additional 2–3 hours beyond the school day delivered by a range of school, community and club providers. The 2004–05 school sport survey—which will collect data from 54% of schools in England—will take place during the summer term. The results of the second survey will be available in the autumn.

Community Sport 3. Since 2002, Sport England and the delivery of sport in England have undergone a thorough restructuring process. Sport England’s funding processes have been simplified into two investment streams, one at national and one at community level. 4. At national level, Sport England has identified 32 priority sports that will receive some £315 million over the four-year period from 2005–06. Funding has been allocated on the basis of each sport meeting participation, success and modernisation targets. The investment spans grassroots to international elite performance and particularly focuses on developing a thriving infrastructure of clubs, coaches and volunteers. 5. At community level, nine Regional Sports Boards (RSBs) have been reconstituted to determine regional sporting priorities and to distribute funding to community-level projects—meaning that community funding decisions are made in response to local needs. Each RSB has published a regional plan for sport and has set out its investment priorities for the region. 6. Success will also be dependent on building eVective partnerships across sectors at regional and local level to increase participation in sport and physical activity, and with Regional Sports Boards working with PCTs, National Governing Bodies (NGBs) and County Sports Partnerships (CSPs).

Community Sports Facilities 7. One of the obstacles preventing people from playing sport is a lack of good sports facilities. By 2006, Government will have committed over £1 billion to develop new or refurbished sports facilities. Over 80% of that money has already been committed or spent on a wide range of facilities programmes. 8. The New Opportunities for PE and Sport (NOPES) provides £581 million in England in the period to March 2006 to provide community sports facilities in schools. Over 80% of the funding has been committed or spent to date on over 1,900 projects. 550 of these projects are already completed and benefiting both schools and the wider community.

51 Priority groups in this context are defined as those with a physical or mental disability, black or minority ethnic groups, those from socioeconomic groups C2, D and E and women. 3049212031 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 89

9. Primary schools are also being supported. Deprived rural and urban local education authorities have received £134 million through Space for Sport and the Arts to provide new sport and arts facilities for their students. 10. We are also helping community sports clubs to increase participation and widen access through the Community Club Development Programme (CCDP) which provides £100 million to National Sports Governing Bodies in the period to March 2008. Over 450 projects now have agreed funding for capital developments, with over 300 of these completed or on site. 11. We are encouraging the development of innovative new and modernised sports facilities and physical activity interventions, some co-located with other services such as Primary Care Trusts. £108 million is available for the Active England programme to March 2006. £102 million has been committed or spent to date on over 250 projects. 12. This represents a considerable investment in our sports facilities infrastructure. Over 4,000 facilities projects have now been approved with over 1,000 currently on site and more than 1200 completed or in use. 13. In Game Plan, we highlighted the need for better knowledge of what we have in terms of facilities making up the country’s sporting infrastructure. The Active Places web-site was launched in July 2004 and provides a comprehensive picture of sports facilities across the country open to the general public. It is now easier for people to find sports facilities. In March 2005, this was enhanced by Active Places Power which has been designed to help local authorities and sports organisations to identify gaps in sports facility provision and to form strategies for sports facility investment. This will be a particularly useful tool if London stages the 2012 Olympic Games as it will allow planning for new athlete training venues around the country. 14. It also essential to make sure that there is suYcient protection for essential recreational resources such as playing fields. Whilst we have already introduced strong measures to protect the nation’s playing fields, we will continue to examine new ways of safeguarding all playing fields required for community use. 15. We are also working closely with DfES to maximise the impact of those sports facilities designed for community use and based in schools, including those developed through the NOPES and Building Schools for the Future programmes. 16. Looking to the future, we want to help local authorities to revitalise their leisure facilities. We aim to develop a comprehensive facilities strategy mapping out supply, demand and priorities for investment. We will also seek to identify the best ways of accessing the capital to build facilities and work with ODPM to ensure that sports facilities planning guidance is rigorous, fit for purpose and free of unnecessary barriers. 17. We have also asked the Audit Commission to undertake a study of local authority facilities to examine the scope for eYciencies and identify standards of good practice that can be disseminated and employed across the country. Local authorities are under pressure to improve access to sport services overall, increase levels of participation (especially those of specific priority sections of the community) as well as to identify substantial eYciency savings. Sport, recreation, and leisure services are not statutory, but they play a key role in addressing national and local priorities, especially in relation to health and physical activity. 18. We are also looking at options to provide incentives to Local Authorities to prioritise sport through the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) from next year. 19. DCMS has supported the introduction of provisions in the Finance Act 2002 to allow Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs) to benefit from a package of tax and rates relief, by registering with the Inland Revenue. 20. The scheme’s purpose is to enable grassroots sport to grow and develop so that the widest possible range of people can participate in healthy recreation. Sports clubs may qualify only if they are open to the whole community. 21. As of 22 March 2005, 2,462 clubs had registered as CASCs. To date, the scheme has brought more than £5 million into grassroots sport. DCMS recently published a leaflet entitled Growing Community Sport to publicise the scheme and increase take-up.

Adult Participation

22. Building on the learning from national campaigns, such as Britain on the Move, and Sport England’s pilot Physical Activity campaign in the North East region, the Government will work with the public, private and voluntary sectors to promote participation in sport and physical activity through a series of co- ordinated publicity campaigns. This will include the promotion of all forms of physical activity, including greater opportunities for walking that have opened up as a result of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. 3049212031 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 90 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

23. This will be supported by proposals we are developing for “Sport Direct”—a single portal for sport that will provide information on how and where you can get active in your area, available through a dedicated website or helpline number.

24. The Big Lottery Fund (BLF) is funding a pilot 3-year Regional Health and Physical Activity Co- ordinator post in the North West region to bring together Regional Government oYces, Regional Sports Boards, Development Agencies, Local Authorities, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), the voluntary sector and the fitness industry. The lessons learnt from this project will be evaluated and help inform a blueprint for other Co-ordinator posts in each of the Government regions.

25. Local Exercise Action Pilots (LEAPs), jointly funded by the Department of Health, Sport England and the Countryside Agency are testing community based interventions to increase physical activity in diVerent community settings. The pilots are being led by Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in nine Government regions. An interim evaluation of the schemes will be available in May 2005.

26. One of our main goals is to encourage employers across the public, private and voluntary sectors to engage and motivate staV to be more active. Active England and Department of Health funding is supporting the establishment of pilots to test the eVectiveness of interventions to promote health and well- being in the workplace. Each pilot will cover a diVerent workplace setting, such as NHS organisation, business, Local Authority, and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

Coaching and Volunteering

27. We are developing proposals to increase the number of volunteers in sport. This will lead to more sustainable opportunities for more young people and adults to participate in sport and physical activity. Nearly six million people volunteer in sport in the UK. The recently published Russell Commission9 report has made recommendations for the development of a new national framework for youth action and engagement that also includes sport.

28. As part of the PE School Sport and Club Link Strategy, from 2002–06, £15 million is being invested in volunteering and leadership programmes for young people through Step into Sport. In the first 2 years, the scheme has: — trained 60,000 young people in Junior and Community Sports Leadership Awards. — enabled 1,500 sports festivals involving 21,000 14–16 year olds and 150,000 primary school children to be held across the country. — engaged 4,000 16–19 year olds in community volunteering. — supported 17 national governing bodies of sport and 45 county sports partnerships to develop volunteering strategies.

29. The Coaching programme is transforming coaching in the UK by creating a major step change in the recruitment, education, employment and deployment of coaches working in England and elsewhere in the UK. The project aims to establish a five-level UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC); employ 45 Coach Development OYcers and establish 3,000 Community Sport Coaches working at local level. Government investment to deliver the coaching strategy between 2004 and 2008 will total £60 million.

30. We are on track to deliver the target. Data from Sport England for September 2004 shows that: — over 19,085 high quality coaching hours delivered; — 73.6% of high quality coaching hours delivered relates to new provision; — over 48,494 young people have received high quality coaching through Community Sports Coach Scheme.

31. The governing bodies of 6 sports are in place to pilot the UKCC and a further 21 are on target to achieve the standard of the UKCC at all levels by the end of 2006. Thirty Coaching Development OYcers are operational with a further 15 in post. 197 Community Sport Coaches employed and operational across 16 County Sport Partnerships.

32. Sport England is funding SkillsActive, the Sector Skills Council for Active Learning and Leisure, to create 9 regional networks to develop professional and volunteer workforce training to meet local and regional needs and to link with the health sector through initiatives such as the register of exercise professionals (REPS). SkillsActive will work with Skills for Health to develop the training and qualifications framework to support eVective delivery across the NHS and in relevant sectors such as sport and leisure. 3049212031 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 91

Data Collection 33. Progress against our PSA targets will be measured using a new annual survey of adult participation in sports, walking and other exercise activities. The survey will include participation rates for specific sports and involvement in areas such as competitive, coaching and voluntary work for sport. Data will also be available for population subgroups, including socioeconomic groups, people with disabilities and black or minority ethnic groups. Future data collection from children is also planned. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Sport England

Sport England’s Role—Executive Summary Sport England’s vision is to create an active and successful sporting nation. Our objective is to increase the number of people actively engaged in sport and physical activity by 1% a year up to 2020. Whilst this target spans both community and elite sport, it is clear that the delivery of sport in the community is a major priority in achieving this ambitious target. Published in December 2002 by the No 10 Policy Unit, Game Plan called for greater priority to be given to encouraging wider grassroots participation in sport, particularly amongst economically disadvantaged people, black and ethnic minorities, young people, women and older people. Prior to the reform of Sport England, the sport delivery process was one of reactively awarding grants. During the reform period the Sport England Board identified a number of issues that had impacted negatively on the delivery of community sport in this country: — Multiple funding streams. — Complex and numerous sporting initiatives. — Lack of eVective measurement. — Planning restrictions a serious barrier to increasing participation. — Lack of private sector involvement. — IneYcient investments in community facilities. — IneVective coaching, clubs and volunteering structure. — The significant drop oV rate in post school participation (as seen below):

Participation within age group

70

60

50 Post school drop-off 40 Declining participation, ageing population 30

20

10

0 6- 11- 16- 25- 35- 45- 55-64 65+ 10 15 24 34 44 54

Age group, years (width proportional to % of population)

Source: Health Survey for England (children and adults)

In January 2003 a number of specific key steps were taken towards improving the delivery of sport in the community. With the aim of implementing a proactive sports development investment programme, Sport England undertook a rigorous modernisation process, we: — Streamlined the organisation, reduced headcount from 570 to 275 and released funds from the back oYce to front line delivery — Reduced funding streams from 75 to two—“national” and “regional” streams—aimed at enabling our partners to set their own priorities within our strategic plan and to then be in a clear position to hold them accountable 3049212032 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 92 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Identified local delivery as a key priority and therefore established nine Regional Sports Boards (RSBs), which report directly to Sport England’s main board. At regional level, RSBs are the face of “modernised sport”, oVering a new investment and delivery platform for sport in the community and a strategic role to lever in additional funds for sport (approaching £2 of new money for every £1 invested).

In March 2004 a new Framework for Sport in England was published. This was underpinned by nine regional plans for sport with the clear objective of increasing the number of people actively engaged in sport by 1% a year up to 2020.

Through the Framework for Sport, the nine regional plans and from evidence-based research (including international comparisons) a number of interventions have been identified and delivery has already started: — Development of a single system for sport in the community—working primarily through our key delivery agents, National Governing Bodies of sport, local authorities, the County Sport Partnership network, and ensuring accountability from Government to those delivering locally — Launch of a national social marketing campaign to encourage a behavioral shift in attitudes towards physical activity in England. A successful pilot has already been carried out in the North East with positive outcomes for participation — Establishment of a robust performance management system and a stronger evidence base to inform investment decisions and strategy development — Engagement of the private sector in terms of grass roots investment and accessibility to local sporting facilities.

Recent Achievements

Across the board national participation rates have remained steady, in the face of challenging trends in society such as increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Despite this we have seen a significant rise in the utilisation figures for new facilities. Over the last 10 years a period of substantial investment has seen £2 billion of Lottery funding invested into more than 4,000 projects to improve sporting environments and boost coaching and club structures. A 154% increase in facility use throughout has been evidenced, from 12 million to 30 million visits as a result of our investments into facilities.

The table below shows the eVectiveness of our investment strategy in meeting our key objectives. However we now need to solve the issues of replicating these micro successes on a macro level:

Monitored Community Usage Facility

Usage before Usage after % increase

All 14,710,345 37,494,897 154.9 Female 1,981,792 7,594,799 283.2 Female U18 490,290 2,355,706 380.5 Male 9,183,681 21,907,013 138.5 Male U18 743,180 3,467,366 366.6 Elite 10,377 84,414 713.5 Disabled 46,315 357,805 672.5 Ethnic minority 317,900 1,013,476 218.8 Coaching numbers 5,528 12,385 124.0 Coaching hours 10,353 19,381 87.2 Coaching hours U18 10,470 21,248 102.9

Sport England is at the heart of driving sport into our communities. Much has already been achieved and we have responded to the Government’s challenge as laid out in Game Plan. Providing co-ordination around activities at a regional level has proved to be the most eVective means of engaging key stakeholders and generating investment in the drive to increase participation in community sport.

One such investment programme is the Community Club Development Programme—an innovative collaboration between the DCMS, Sport England, and 20 national governing bodies of sport (NGBs). 3049212032 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 93

For the first time, this programme enables the NGBs to strategically identify capital projects for investment and, working in partnership with Sport England, ensure that projects are delivered eVectively. The Community Club Development Programme is intended to address the needs of the backbone of English sport—the community based sports clubs themselves. In a recent survey of sports clubs, the lack of adequate sports facilities was cited as the major issue inhibiting the development of clubs. Funding for this programme amounts to £100 million up to 2008 with over £30 million already invested through 500 awards ranging from £5,000 to £1 million. In November 2004, Sport England and the Big Lottery Fund announced the Active England Programme. This £108 million programme is developing some of the most creative sport and leisure facilities, bringing in investment from a wide range of partners into some of the most deprived areas. Developments across the country will be testing out new ways of delivering community sport facilities with new partners, targeting those who do not currently participate in sport and physical activity. Government have recently committed £27.5 million of funding towards a National Sports Foundation in order to engage the private sector more fully in local community sport delivery. Multi-sport environments play a key part in increasing participation levels in sport and physical activity. This new approach centres on the development of community hubs that combine multiple sports and activities, and also have the potential to bring health, social welfare and education services together under one roof. The key to success for multi-sport environments rests firmly in people—specifically through investing in volunteers and coaches.

Case study: Bolton Lads and Girls Club—Getting the Community Active The club is in the top 10% of deprived wards in the country and has a proud history spanning 100 years but the old facilities were simply falling apart and required significant investment. With the local area dependant on the club to keep the community active and oV the streets, a significant cash boost was needed. Sport England invested £4m towards the project costs of refurbishing and developing the multi-sport club. Improved facilities include sports halls, boxing gym, a dance and aerobics centre, fitness and weights room. Within the redeveloped club, a number of new programmes were set up for the community of Bolton. These included an after-school club, a junior club, senior club and a number of community groups. The results speak for themselves with over 2,500 youngsters using the facility each week.

Case study: Westway Sports Centre—Delivery Sport into the Community Sport England has invested £8.3 million of Lottery funding to help redevelop the facilities at the Westway Sports Centre. The Centre reopened in 2001, with new artificial pitches, the UK’s largest climbing wall, indoor and outdoor tennis courts, five courts, a gym and netball and basketball courts. Last year 400,000 people visited the centre—previously a derelict strip of land under the A40 flyover in West London. Over 600 children receive tennis coaching, four players are ranked in the top ten juniors in the country, and 140 teams play on the artificial pitches each week. Sport England has made significant progress in building the case for sport with key Government departments and national and regional partners. The objective is simple: we need to put sport and physical activity at the heart of all our communities.

Health Sport and physical activity are known to reduce direct healthcare costs and the risk of contracting chronic diseases—and there is a need to communicate this. Delivering Choosing Health identifies the marketing of physical activity as a “big win” in public health, particularly in relation to tackling obesity. The plans are a real opportunity to boost participation in sport and leisure activities and create a healthier nation. They set out for the first time a nationally co-ordinated cross-government action plan identifying the leadership role of the NHS and the need to work across all sectors. Sport England has rightly been identified as a key delivery partner to the Department of Health in achieving these objectives and stands ready to deliver.

Volunteering Volunteering is the lifeblood of sport in England. It represents 26% of all formal volunteering and plays a key role in encouraging community sport. In response to the Russell Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a significant investment into youth volunteering. In research conducted, a total of 47% of young people stated ‘sport’ as their main volunteering interest. Sport England is highlighted as a key partner to drive this work forward and is well placed to engage more young people in volunteering action within their communities. The Year of the Volunteer 2005 sport eVort is also being led by Sport England and key partners. 3049212032 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 94 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

In partnership with Sports Leaders UK and the Youth Sport Trust, Sport England is working to deliver Step Into Sport, which aims to encourage more young people to become involved in sport in their local communities. It provides a structured path to attract people into sports volunteering and deploy their experience and talents to enrich local community and school sport. Since it began in 2002–03, the programme has enabled 60,000 young people to undertake sports leadership training, and engaged 4,000 young people in community volunteering.

Local Authorities Sport England has been working closely with the Audit Commission on the next round of Comprehensive Performance Assessment for Local Authorities and the potential inclusion of sport in the “culture block”. Sport and active recreation can make a positive and valuable contribution both to national policy objectives and shared local authority priorities. Sport England is committed to ensuring that there is robust and consistent data across all local authorities and has identified indicators that measure levels of participation. Robust, practical methodologies will deliver these data requirements. If the culture block is included as part of CPA it could be one of the most important steps forward for community sport. It will mean that local government performance will be measured against a range of indicators, including increasing participation in community sport, in the same way as their performance on housing and social service provision. Sport England has also recently published guidelines, endorsed by ODPM and DCMS, to help local authorities develop Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs) for sport and active recreation. Sport England is leading on establishing the place of sport in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), with guidance notes to be published in June 2005. Furthermore, a dialogue is beginning with ODPM to encourage the adoption of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) for community sport and recreation. In short, Sport England is committed to continuous improvement in the sector and to the development of performance tools which help local authorities focus attention on community sport and direct resource accordingly. The last 10 years has seen sport benefit significantly from public investment. People who are already actively engaged are playing more sport in better, higher quality facilities, with better club and coaching structures. Whilst the 30% who play sport have benefited in the last ten years, we need to reach a much larger section of the population if we are to realise the wider impacts that sport can have on health, education, community cohesion and the economy. The agenda for the future is about fully targeting those not engaged in sports or any kind of physical activity. This can be achieved through communicating our messages and providing the infrastructure and networks on the ground where they can and want to get active. Sport England will also deliver a strategy based on evidence, including international comparisons, and focused on achieving significant progress towards three key Government objectives: — Reinvigorating community sport to help to create stronger and safer communities, linked to the Government’s emphasis on “civility”, and bringing about a significant increase in volunteering, voluntary sector management of resources and the development of volunteer support and education systems — Transforming the culture of physical activity in England to make a major contribution to the “ticking time bomb” of obesity. — Regenerating sporting provision as a major contribution to the new localism and “liveability” agendas. A new generation of innovative facilities and management regimes that share resources, avoid duplication, shed bureaucracy and genuinely relate to the needs of local communities. April 2005 3049213003 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 95

Witnesses: Rt Hon Estelle Morris, a Member of the House, Minister of State, Mr Paul Heron, Head of Sports, Department for Culture, Media and Sport; Lord Carter of Coles, a Member of the House of Lords, Chairman, and Mr Roger Draper, Chief Executive, Sport England, examined.

Chairman: Minister, Lord Carter, we would like to for the weekend or whatever. Can the Government welcome you here this morning and to prove it take action and force that, or is that relationship Rosemary McKenna is going to start the improving? questioning. Estelle Morris: That is true. There are almost two sectors here. There are the clubs which sometimes Q52 Rosemary McKenna: Good morning everyone. you have to pay to join and sometimes you do not I am absolutely passionate about young people have to pay to join, which are open all hours and being involved in sport. I taught primary children very welcoming for sport. As we know from our own for 20 years and played sport all my young life. We constituencies, there are local authority sports now understand the relationship between physical facilities. Some have excellent qualities and as good activity, diet, good health and a healthy country. as you could find in any private club or in any sports What is the Department doing to pull together all club anywhere, but sometimes they are not as the resources that are going in through education flexible as they ought to be. Patrick has just done a and health and direct it towards what we now know key piece of work for the Government on this is absolutely crucial and that is physical activity looking across the patch because although I would from as young as possible? not want to do anything other than treasure the Estelle Morris: I think we have made a lot of diVerent routes that each of those sports facilities progress, but clearly we need to do more work in have, I think that somehow we have got to have a that direction. Although our Department has delivery mechanism that brings those together so responsibility for sport, I think increasingly we are that when somebody is choosing where they want to becoming aware that it is something that can touch practise their sport after school, in adult life or every department’s agenda. I know from my days in whatever, they do not have to say what classification education, when the school sports curriculum and of sports club am I entitled to go to or can I aVord partnership had begun to be built up there, that the to go to or is available, but they can ask more quality of that working between DCMS and DFEE meaningful questions of the sport that they want to in those days was the thing that made it happen. My do. Lord Carter has recently presented a report to feeling is that probably that relationship is forging Government about that. ahead, but our Department needs to make similar relationships, as it is doing with the Department of Health and with ODPM, in terms of local authority Q54 Rosemary McKenna: Do you think that you are facilities and the rest of it. Sometimes it must seem a getting the kind of response from local government minefield of targets and diVerent funding streams in that you want in that area? diVerent organisations for the end user. I am LordCarter of Coles: Local government is really absolutely sure that over the next five years, central to sport because they are one of the big probably over the time of the next Parliament and deliverers, particularly where you have got market beyond, one of the things that will change about the failure. The private sector has moved in and dealt way sport is delivered is that it will be more coherent with some of the easier parts to deal with, but we between government departments. I think the school certainly need local government to deal with its part. sports structure is absolutely right. I personally Because of the way local government priorities have would not want to see that changed other than by been set in recent times sport, because it is part of the looking at the evidence and adjusting it and giving culture block, has not been measured and because it more flexibility to it as it goes along. That has stood has not been measured it has not necessarily received the test of time over five years and I think there is the priority it possibly should. The Government has general agreement from Ofsted and the sports sector talked to the Audit Commission and now there is a as well that it is working. I think where we have not push to get this into the performance measurement got the joined-up working yet is in community sport system but I think that would create a great and I do apologise for that, but I think that that is diYculty. In the course of the review we have just probably to be expected given the length of time that done one local authority told us that they had 154 we have been concentrating on sport. I think we have key performance indicators and in their hierarchy of got to bring together local authorities, we have got things sport was 131st. I think local authorities to bring together the sports organisations, we have would like to do more but it is not in their list of got to bring together government and its departments and clearly the structure which we have priorities in many places. set up, which Patrick chairs through Sport England and the new regional sports bodies, will be the Q55 Derek Wyatt: It is the year of the volunteer. I structure through which we will deal with that. was a co-sponsor of the Volunteering Bill with Julian Brazier earlier in the year which the Government Q53 Rosemary McKenna: How successful is your refused to back. I read Lord Falconer’s speech last relationship with local government? I was involved week on volunteering. Will we have a commitment in local government and it always struck me that the in the manifesto for volunteering? Will there be a one failing was that we had all these facilities that change to the law so that all risk taking at sport level, closed down at four o’clock and they were not in amateur sport, will not stop but there will be some available to the community for the rest of the day or rule to enable volunteering properly? 3049213003 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 96 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Rt Hon Estelle Morris,MP,Mr Paul Heron,Lord Carter of Coles an d Mr Roger Draper

Estelle Morris: It is clearly not for me, despite the that is probably the right way forward. If I was standing of this Select Committee, to say what is running a club I would look at both bits of going to be in the manifesto; that will have to await legislation and think that one might cancel out the the announcement. There are a number of things other, but I think both bits of legislation are right. that have happened that should give the Committee The Secretary of State is mindful of the unrest that confidence that volunteering has a very firm place this has caused within the sector and she has not only within community but within sport. If you agreed—and this will be an agreement that goes look at the Russell Commission, the sports sector is beyond the election—to assess the evidence of its one of the major sources of volunteering. When you impact and the Department and future ministers will speak to young people about the volunteering they do that and reflect whether anything further needs to do, the greater percentage say that they volunteer be done in light of the evidence. more in sport than in any other sector of activity. We have to recognise the strength of volunteering in this Q57 Derek Wyatt: The Chancellor in the Budget has sector. This has probably gone unrecognised in past announced £27.5 million for a National Sports decades and we also ought to thank the people who Foundation yet annually the Football Foundation do volunteer. The Russell Commission reported gets £60 million. What is the National Sports recently and, as you know, the Chancellor in the Foundation going to do that individual sports could Budget set aside some private funding and one of the not do? For instance, why could it not be a rugby sources of funding was Sport England as well to foundation or a tennis foundation or a cricket make sure that we do continue to develop work on foundation? What if the four gentlemen that saw us volunteering in the future. Secondly, I think the earlier all said they would rather do it that way? point you make about risk taking and about people Estelle Morris: They may do so because that might no longer being confident enough to do volunteering mean more money to their individual sport. We have is well made. My sense is there are two things here: got to keep our eye on which is the best way of there is the law and the perception of the law. I think supporting sports at the grass-roots. The more in actual fact volunteers have probably got far more partnership there is the more simple the cover than they think they have. I for one would not organisations and the more direct the funding want to move to a society where every action we took streams the more eVective the sport will be. tended to mitigate any risk. In terms of sports LordCarter of Coles: I think the National Sports activities for young people, that would deny them a Foundation will be very thin. I do not want to front lot of the important challenges about growing up run anything that Ministers might wish to suggest. It and being fit and active and healthy. I cannot sense is a means of channelling money to those whether there is a change in the law needed, but I do organisations. One would like to see the Rugby know that in schools and in the Department for Foundation, Golf Foundation, Tennis Foundation, Education and Skills and in our Department, where etcetera, in the way that the Football Foundation sports volunteering is such a powerful thing, we will has done, bringing in outside money from do what we need to do to make sure that the level of sponsorships to be put into the grass-roots. The volunteering increases and does not decrease. National Sports Foundation should not be an impediment; it should be a mechanism for distributing the money to those people. Q56 Derek Wyatt: My own rugby club, Sheppey, said that they had got a rate rebate on the one hand but then unfortunately they got a whacking big Q58 Derek Wyatt: We have had this conversation increase in licensing on the other. The evidence from with people in the arts over the last couple of Margaret Talbot of the CCPR was exactly the same, months, but one thing I keep asking is how many that basketball clubs, golf clubs and swimming clubs times has section 106 in planning been used to create that were aVected had had this 80% reduction, but sports facilities in the community? If you do not actually the licence fee was taken on the 100% know, please write and tell me. irrespective of the reduction the Government had Estelle Morris: It must be a fair few. I will write to 2 made. How are we going to resolve this tension over you. the next couple of years? Estelle Morris: I suppose when somebody has been subsidised from the public sector and that subsidy Q59 Derek Wyatt: I do not know of one at all in my ends then they are asked to pay themselves. That is own community and I have been there eight years. I essentially what has happened through the Licensing do not know of one 106 that has been used for a Act. You are right, the two things have happened at bowling green, a tennis court or anything else. the same time. Lots of sports clubs have got relief Estelle Morris: I have one in my constituency. through rate relief and have got a cost through the Licensing Act. Most sports clubs are in A and B Q60 Mr Hawkins: First of all, can I congratulate bands. I do not think it is an extortionate amount of you, Patrick and Roger, on the Sport England report money. It is a first fee of about £100 and then an which I have had the chance to read through. One of annual renewal fee of £70 for band A and it is slightly higher for band B. Even in the largest band it is £500 2 Witness: I understand that data on the use of planning obligations (section 106 agreements) is not held centrally. or £600 for annual fees. I think that is roughly about Local planning authorities are required to record details of right. It is not a licensing fee to be a sports club, it is planning obligations on the Planning Register and local land a licensing fee because of the bar proceeds. I think charges register. 3049213003 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 97

5 April 2005 Rt Hon Estelle Morris,MP,Mr Paul Heron,Lord Carter of Coles an d Mr Roger Draper the things you stress is the need to have a single Q62 Mr Hawkins: In our earlier evidence, Minister, access point. I realise you will not have heard the we heard a great deal about the way in which as a evidence that was given to this Committee earlier on country we are not getting anywhere near similar this morning, but time and again the representatives countries elsewhere in the world in terms of funding for sport, the small clubs and the sports governing per head for sport. I know that you and I share cross- bodies, were talking about the multiplicity of party the belief that sport can contribute in a whole funding streams that you referred to and the range of areas, particularly in terms of law and diYculty with the bureaucracy. Does that not really order, getting children away from the drugs sub- have to be the highest priority in the future, culture, getting them into healthy activity and it can particularly when you look at the fact that small help in the health agenda and tackling obesity. When clubs in particular are entirely reliant on volunteers you look at the figures that have been published in with limited time? line with our Committee’s inquiry today in the LordCarter of Coles: What the report tries to do is national press about how much higher funding per point a way forward to create a single point of head is in many other countries round the world, access, a portal, so that people can get through to the something we heard about from the leaders of the various organisations. So if people want to know major sports and also from Margaret Talbot from where to go and play a particular sport, maybe it is the CCPR earlier, do you not think there is a great because they have moved to a new area and they deal further to go in terms of a real concentration on want to find a football team to join, we have got to sport as a major part of this country’s future? simplify find that access and do it through an Estelle Morris: That might be true, but it makes me electronic portal, moving with the times. What think we were a heck of a long way behind in 1997. happens under that is we need to preserve the best of If you look at the money that has been invested in the existing organisations. What one is looking for is sport since 1997, it is £3 billion and there was to capture the access but in a very modern way and additional money prior to that through the lottery. then push it down, preserving those organisations The trajectory of money spent on sport is definitely but at the same time seeing what they have in going in the right direction. Of course we could common so they can share those. It is an attempt to spend more; we always can spend more. I may get get the best of both worlds there really. shot down for saying this. Sometimes more money needs to be spent in sport and it does not always have to come from the Government. I think sports bodies and sports organisations also have to look at themselves in terms of getting sponsorship or private sector support. I do not for a minute mean to suggest Q61 Mr Hawkins: Can I suggest to you that one of that the Government does not have a responsibility the roles that Sport England can have is to try and and a duty to support sport, but we have done that. ensure that we do not keep re-inventing the wheel in What else has changed over recent years, which I diVerent parts of the country. We have already think is something that is almost as important or referred to the good work that the Football perhaps the two needs to go together? I think the Foundation can do. I have seen how much good nation’s attitude to sport has changed. I think we work has been done by youth development oYcers have undergone a cultural change in this country in rugby and cricket and swimming and other sports. about sport over the last decade because, as you One of the things is that as a body you could have just said, a lot more people are realising not highlight and give examples to the whole country of only the joy and pleasure of sport but the where innovative eVorts are being made. I know you contribution that it can make to lots of their activity have tried to do this in the past. Would you agree in a way I do not think they were at the beginning of with me that this is something that there should be the 1990s. I acknowledge that even more money more of so as to try and make it easier particularly could be invested, but I think that the record that the for the small sports clubs to learn from other’s Government has had since 1997 in terms of investing experience and not have to find out the hard way, and responding or being part of leading that change particularly in terms of dealing with the funding in culture is actually quite good. mechanisms and dealing with local authorities? Mr Draper: It has been symptomatic of the nature of sport. A lot of the new community club programmes Q63 Mr Hawkins: I share with you the belief that we coming through now are a good example of where need to encourage funding from all sources and we sports are working together in multi-sport all see the good work that is done by organisations environments and sharing examples of good practice like Sports in Action and the Foundation for Sports as well as the lessons that they have learnt as well. and the Arts and I am sure both of us would welcome Obviously most people are now fully aligned, as well that, but do you not find it worrying when the head as getting good multi-sport facilities, to investing in of cricket as it were comes before this Committee, as people as well. A key part of our strategy moving he has done this morning, and says that on current forward is to make sure we get the right management plans he is going to have his money for community on the ground and that we continue to support the development of cricket dropped by 40% initially and volunteers but we also invest in quality coaching in then to zero in 2008? That must be wrong. I am those club programmes. I think we have a key role picking up one individual sport. There is clearly to play in sharing some of these good practices along something quite concerning to those of us in public with the governing bodies of sport as well. life who share a passion for sport when you see the 3049213003 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 98 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Rt Hon Estelle Morris,MP,Mr Paul Heron,Lord Carter of Coles an d Mr Roger Draper head of a major national sport, what I would regard quite a lot of money back into the front line which as traditionally our national game, saying our Lord Carter and his team led on. We set out the community funding as currently planned will drop strategic policy for the nation’s sports policy. Sports to zero in 2008. That has got to be worrying. Council England does the national level investment Estelle Morris: As we do not allocate the money and then the regional sports bodies do the local between the diVerent sports I will refer that question. investment and that should be quite a clear line in Mr Draper: There has been a lot of investment in that money does not come direct from Government. recent years going into PE and school sport and we If you are a sport organisation, I suppose if you are are now beginning to reverse the decline in school working at the end where it is part of the national sport. There has been quite a significant amount of investment, you would look to Sports England; if investment going into elite sport but never enough. not, you would look to the Regional Sports Boards. There has been quite a gap in terms of community I know you have also got the local authorities as sports provision. What we are now trying to do is well, so you have this dual system. As a lot of money turn from being a reactive giver out of lottery money has come through ring-fenced grants that last for into a plethora of initiatives into focused investment. three or six years, which is very welcome and There is a need for more investment in that middle absolutely essential, the downside of that is it block in terms of community sport. We know one of becomes a diVerent project for a diVerent purpose, the key issues we face in this country is the drop-oV with a diVerent name and often a diVerent rate post school sport. We have got to invest in our application form. You get this strange situation community facilities and we have also got to re- where you almost end up moaning about the fact calibrate the money that is also in the system into that there is more new money being put into the 21st century thinking. There is still a lot of local system. The Regulatory Impact Unit and my authorities investing in what are 1970s leisure Department have just produced a joint report facilities, Victorian swimming pools and so on and I looking at how we can cope. The pattern of it should think sport is aligned in terms of its thinking in that make sense. When I came to prepare for this we have got to invest in our club structures, we have Committee meeting, as something of a newcomer, I got to invest in multi-sport structures and we have could imagine how a new sports body trying to make got to underpin that with investment in our coaching sense of it would see that it was diYcult and, of structures as well. I think that middle block is course, it all became clear after 24 hours! absolutely key for sport because otherwise we will have fantastic eVort going on in PE and schools sport, we will have continued success at the highest Q65 Michael Fabricant: It has not become clear to level, but we have got to make sure we have got the the Lawn Tennis Association. It does seem to be pipelines in place to develop that structure as well. In creating real problems for the LTA and other every successful sporting country in the world it is organisations too. about the clubs, it is about their coaches and it is Mr Draper: There are a couple of points to be made. about their competitive structures and that is where One is that Sports England has been very successful the investment is now needed. in terms of broadening its horizons and as a result we are getting more funding coming in from other government departments—Health, the Home oYce Q64 Michael Fabricant: I want to follow on from and so on, and that has led to its own complexities Nick Hawkins’ line of questioning but really direct in a sense. What we have tried to do this year is have it at the Minister. It is not so much the question of a crack at bringing all of these funding streams under money because the Minister, quite rightly, said we one roof, under the Whole Sport Plan process. It has could always spend more on everything, but more on been quite a learning experience for us because as we the question of bureaucracy. The four sports brought them all together what we have found is that partnership were saying earlier on that they had each one of them has got its own funding lines quite a constructive meeting some time back when attached. Some of them are capital, some of them Kate Hoey was Minister and she recognised that you can only spend on revenue, some have got to be there did need to be a less bureaucratic way of spent in a certain area. We are the first step along the distributing money and things have got worse since reform journey. Clearly there is also an issue of then, not better. We have heard from them about investment. There is never enough funding to go how individual sportsmen can get money but how round. We have got a £50 million budget to spread bodies like the Lawn Tennis Association and so on across 20 priority sports and ten development and so forth cannot access money. We have heard sports. It is our job now to fix that problem. It has about a plethora of diVerent organisations, not just been highlighted in Lord Carter’s report that we do the diVerent sports councils but also diVerent want to move into a direction where there is a single regional bodies. There does not seem to be, to put it portal, a single funding stream. We can then get the in their words, a one-stop shop, which was what was key performance indicators into place and we can originally envisaged by DCMS. What has gone stop some of the nonsense that goes on at the wrong? moment where people are spending an inordinate Estelle Morris: I am not sure if anything has gone amount of time chasing pots of money rather than wrong. Let me say how it is meant to be. The DCMS delivering what they should be doing, which is set out their strategic vision for sport in its document getting coaches on the ground, better facilities and game plan and went through quite a sizable so on. There is a commitment from our end to sort reorganisation of every arm of sport and recycled that out. We have not got it right as part of our 3049213003 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 99

5 April 2005 Rt Hon Estelle Morris,MP,Mr Paul Heron,Lord Carter of Coles an d Mr Roger Draper learning process this year but we are going to sit the sixties and seventies which are not up to modern down with the governing bodies, learn from that needs and people therefore are not going to them. experience and see what we can do to make their life Some of those need pulling down, some need a lot easier. refurbishing, and in particular local authorities are going to have to look at how that is funded. Often Q66 Michael Fabricant: We learned that you are the modernisation of those would throw up savings going to be meeting with them very shortly, so I am to enable investment to be made. What we found, acting as an interlocutor here, telling you what they looking at other experiences, is that where you have are going to be saying to you. I like the idea of the big sports clusters, say, a multi-sports centre, what portal being somewhat of a nerd when it comes to you can attract is good management because it is a computers but the portal I think was for individual big operation, whereas I suppose if you are running sportsmen, was it not, rather than for organisations a little sports facility it is very marginal. When you like the LTA? Would it be possible—is it possible? get a big multi-sports centre then you can go to clubs (probably not)—to have a portal so that and start capacity building. You have somewhere organisations like the LTA, which operates for them to come; you can oVer them something and throughout the United Kingdom, could somehow or you act as a hub. That is very central to our policy, other get a single one-stop shop (back to that again) to develop throughout the UK, in the way of sports so that, whether it is coming from the lottery, development of old, these big multi-sports centres whether it is coming from regional bodies, whether which can draw in people. There is a facility that has it is coming from national bodies, they can go to just been very successful in Germany, where the local one organisation? We did hear in evidence earlier on authority or a charity provides the facility but the that quite often they are having to make the same clubs come in and they are helped with the presentations but sometimes with a Scottish accent, organisation and then people know where to go. sometimes with a Welsh accent, to diVerent bodies to Then if we are successful in introducing a portal collect the money for what is essentially a UK people can find out where they go to pursue the sport programme. they want to pursue. Estelle Morris: It should be possible. It should not be beyond the wit of man or woman to make that Q69 Alan Keen: Can you expand on your views for happen. In response to Lord Carter’s report we organisations at local level? Pete Baveystock, ought to look at that. By the bye, I hope that some Chairman of Grasshoppers Rugby Club and of the changes to the lottery might help with that Chairman of the sports forum that we formed in the because people also in sports find themselves last 12 months, is still in the room now and he gave applying to more than one source of lottery funding evidence earlier. We formed the sports club because and we are definitely there trying to get one point of we wanted to bring clubs together and help clubs entry so that it is one form and then it is directed to who were good at sport but not good at the appropriate strands. It really should not be administration. How do you see the organisation beyond the wit of anyone to do that and we ought to locally? Before you answer, can I just mention the promise to look at that. fact that the Welsh Assembly on the arts side have encouraged forums to be set up throughout Wales in Q67 Michael Fabricant: You ought to promise? Will order to bring arts bodies together and share the you promise? joint facilities and encourage others and fill in the Estelle Morris: We promise to look at that. gaps where gaps exist? How do you see it at that local level? Q68 Alan Keen: Nick Hawkins asked very well the Mr Draper: In terms of getting local government in questions I was going to ask. Could I congratulate particular to develop much more strategic local you on the report that you did, Lord Carter and planning, one of the knock-on eVects of the lottery Roger. Can I come on to one of my favourite issues? was that because it is an open process people apply Looking at the sports facilities in my own local and because of the myriad of funding streams they authority, there is loads of space to fit basketball were applying and sending oV lots of diVerent courts in the space between pitches or between the applications, and in fact one local authority sports pavilion and the pitches. We all desperately need development oYcer’s key performance indicator more funding but there are masses of potential was the number of grant forms they filled in; it was facilities there that just need bringing together by not the number of new participants they had got in helping the individuals themselves to bring clubs on the ground. We have just launched something together. Did you make any estimate of the amount called activeplaces.com which means that for the of facilities that are already there that are not being first time on the public side you can plug in your used? Some clubs desperately need more members. postcode and look at any facility in your local area. Other clubs would love to start to play their sports What we are now doing is expanding that to local but they have not got the ground, yet other clubs authorities to use as a planning base. It has been an have got spare space. Did you make any assessment interesting process because we have been in some of this mismatch? local authorities where there is only a facility need LordCarter: Yes, we did. There are a number of for, say, eight multi-sports facilities, and they are strands to that. First of all, there are a number of currently building 23 individually based sports ageing facilities that you are probably familiar with. facilities. There are eYciencies to be had by better Most constituencies have things that were built in local strategic planning. There is also some good 3049213003 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:46:48 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 100 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

5 April 2005 Rt Hon Estelle Morris,MP,Mr Paul Heron,Lord Carter of Coles an d Mr Roger Draper work being undertaken. The community club may acknowledge, have an influence on a change in programme which is being led by the governing the relationship of the two rugby codes and we are bodies has been a big success. I have opened quite a very pleased indeed to have played a part in that. few rugby clubs recently where rugby clubs have The Chancellor of the Exchequer has followed very gone from being a rugby club in the community to carefully indeed the recommendations we made being a community sports club where they have put about film tax breaks and I think we have played a in third generation astro-turf pitches, five-a-side part in that. Indeed, when we went to Hollywood, as football, hockey, but rugby is still the heart of the sometimes we were forced to do during the course of club and as a result they have got more people our work, the President of Columbia Pictures gave coming through the system and they have got more us a lavish lunch at Culver City and said that secondary spend over the bar as well. It is really Columbia only filmed in Britain from the United about local decision-making, getting that right, and States because of our tax breaks here. I said, “Yes, pushing things down to our regional sports always this committee was responsible for those tax has been a big success because people are now breaks”, and he said, “I know that. Otherwise you dealing with applications and with people who they would only be getting sandwiches”. We have had an understand at a local level. There are a number of eVect on that. We have had an eVect on changing diVerent interventions we can put in place to make the code of conduct of the Press Complaints that happen. Commission. I think that if I had to claim pride for Alan Keen: That is very encouraging. Before I finish, one achievement rather than any other it is the fact Chairman, can I say a couple of soppy things? First that we saved the last World War II destroyer, HMS of all, can I thank Estelle for the second time? Cavalier, from the scrap yard. I shall remember very Whatever portfolio you have had you have done well the veterans who served on HMS Cavalier with great proficiency and you always appear to be coming here and practically forcing us to make a yourself and I think politicians would have a better report, which in our turn we practically forced the name all round the place if everyone was like you, so authorities to adopt, and you can go down to thank you for all you have done. I am so sorry you Chatham dockyard and there it is (and it is a are going. Can I also say that we have been so proud wonderful sight) and see monumentum requiris down to serve under Gerald on this committee. Gerald has at Chatham dockyard. Could I join Alan, Minister, in thanking you and wishing you well. You have contributed so much in his political life but no more appeared before us three times in the last few weeks than he has on this committee, giving people the wearing three diVerent hats and whatever the future opportunity to put their views over, put them holds for you we would like to wish you very well together and pass them back out to people in indeed. As somebody who, if I may say so, has government to act on. I do not think anyone could known your father and your uncle for very many have done the job better and we have enjoyed it years, I take great pride in your achievements. I immensely. would like to thank the Clerks of this select Chairman: Alan, thank you very much indeed for committee for the extraordinary work that they have that. As people will know, the election has been done, without which we could not have functioned called and therefore this will be the last public as we have. Indeed, I might as well reveal that we evidence session of this committee in this parliament forced the authorities of the House to allow us to though we, for those interested, will be holding a keep these Clerks when they wanted to change the press conference for our art market report tomorrow way select committees were carried on. Above all I morning. I would like to say that the session we have would like to thank the members of this committee. had this morning is the best kind of thing that this It is a wonderful committee to have chaired and I Committee has done: single inquiries with take great pride in the spirit in which this committee distinguished experts on subjects of very wide has done its work. I would like to wish Nick interest. I would like to thank all the witnesses today Hawkins well because he will not be contesting the for making our final public evidence session so election and I hope everybody will share with me the memorable. Over the years we have had a mixed good wishes that we will be sending to Debra Shipley record on this Committee. Sometimes we have who cannot be here today and is undergoing major succeeded; sometimes we have failed, but if you look surgery. She has gone through a terrible time, losing back we did bring about a fundamental change in her husband in this Parliament and now facing this the Royal Opera House which, before we inquired and having to leave Parliament as a result. I would into it, was an elitist organisation catering to a small not want this session to end without sending her our social segment and has now been widely opened up. good wishes and our love. With that, thank you very We did, as some of our witnesses here this morning much indeed. 304921PAG1 Page Type [SO] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 101 Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Amateur Swimming Association

Introduction 1. This paper is a submission by the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry into Community Sport. 2. The ASA is the governing body for swimming and its associated disciplines in England and is the largest of the constituent members of the Amateur Swimming Federation of Great Britain. However, it has a much wider remit, which is indicated by its mission statement, which includes the following objectives: “Swimming is a sport for life. To ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn to swim. To ensure everyone can achieve his or her personal goals. To ensure everyone has the opportunity to enjoy swimming as a part of a healthy lifestyle”. 3. Swimming continues to be the largest participation sport in the UK, with 11.9 million people participating on a regular basis and is widely acknowledged as being a healthy activity, providing good cardio vascular and muscular exercise, with minimal risk of injury. It is a sport enjoyed by both young and old and one that can be enjoyed by people of all shapes and sizes. Importantly it is also an activity from which people suVering from a disability can gain an immense amount of satisfaction and pleasure and also help with the recovery of people who have suVered a major illness. In short it is an activity, which is uniquely beneficial across the whole of society. 4. In its evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry into the Sport of Swimming in December 2001 the ASA drew the attention of the Committee to a number of issues which restricted the opportunities for children and adults to take up swimming and to continue swimming throughout their lifetime. These were picked up by the Committee in the report “Testing the Waters: The Sport of Swimming” and we feel it is appropriate to refer to the progress which has been made as a part of this submission.

Learning to Swim—Schools 5. Initially many children learn to swim through schools and evidence was provided to the Committee indicating that one in five children failed to meet the requirements of the National Curriculum and were unable to swim 25 miles by the end of Key Stage 2. Further research indicates that this may in fact be an understated figure and more children are not given an opportunity to achieve the National Curriculum standard than was originally thought. This further research confirms however that the ones that don’t achieve the standard or who don’t get the opportunity to achieve the standard are largely from the poorest in society. 6. As a solution to the problem two pilot schemes have been conducted by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), together with the ASA and these have demonstrated that for children who have not achieved the standard, there can be a 67% success rate if they are provided with an intensive course of instruction (TOP-Up) at some point in the term—in this case, after their SATs exam. The added benefits of this initiative were astonishing in that the children gained in general confidence and had a strong feeling of wellbeing. The anecdotal evidence from teachers from the scheme was impressive as for some children it was the first time they had achieved much in sport through school. 7. Further co-operation between the DfES and the ASA has resulted in the launch of a school’s “Swimming Charter” providing guidance on swimming teaching and water safety and examples of good practice for school swimming programmes. 8. Additionally substantial funding is being made available by the DfES for further development of the TOP-Up programme to ensure that learn to swim, delivered by schools is of a consistently high quality. The ASA are currently working with DfES on a consultation into the best method of delivering this on a national basis. 9. Whilst all the foregoing are positive moves, the ASA still hears of schools where, because of funding pressures relating to the cost of transport and pool hire or because of pressures on the time table or the lack of suitably trained swimming teachers, swimming still does not receive the attention it warrants. The key to resolving once and for all the issue of eVective school swimming is for OFSTED to measure the delivery of school swimming and the achievement of children against the agreed standard linked to significant investment in quality teacher training through the ASA. All the evidence suggests a good teacher will deliver good results in the pool. 10. The teaching of swimming and safety in the water are not only the gateway to swimming and its disciplines but are also necessary to take part safely in a whole host of other water-based activities. The ASA believes that learning to swim at an early age is one of the pre requisites for a lifelong active and healthy 3049211001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 102 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

lifestyle and whilst applauding what is being done to improve the situation by the DfES, considers that the Government should be more specific in focusing on the delivery of swimming in schools including the provision of specific targeted funding. 11. Learning to swim however should not be seen in isolation to the achievement of the child generally in school. Knowledge of water safety an important part of the National Curriculum provides important understanding for the child in risk assessment. Swimming also opens up the door to a wider enjoyment of sport and activity and can be linked to nutrition and other key learning skills.

Learning to Swim—Other Sources of Tuition 12. Not all swimming tuition takes place in schools and many children and adults receive swimming tuition from other sources. For some time the ASA has had a concern about the standard of teaching and a lack of consistency in the approach to the teaching of swimming. As a result the ASA has developed a standard for teaching programmes, “Aquamark”, which can be applied universally to schools, local authority pools, private pool providers, health clubs, private swim schools and swimming clubs. The standard has been developed following consultation with the various types of organisations, which provide teaching, was piloted in eleven centres before its launch and has the support of the leisure industry. The standard should help to ensure a consistency in the approach to and quality of lessons, giving the consumer confidence and making learning to swim an enjoyable experience. Perhaps the time has now come where tuition in all public and private sport facilities should be required to meet national performance criteria set by the ASA as the governing body for the sport.

Lifelong Participation 13. Once the skill of swimming has been learned it is there for the rest of a person’s life. Whilst it may become “rusty” if the skill is not exercised, recovery is easy and the support given by the water allows an aging person with mobility problems to undertake cardio vascular exercise, which would normally be impossible. 14. Whilst this is true it is also correct to say that for some swimming is boring and we believe that if we are to encourage people to swim throughout their lifetime there is a need to look carefully at the promotion of swimming and its image. We need to improve our facilities with significant investment to make them inviting and more customer friendly and we need to adapt our programmes in pools to provide “added value” to the customers of today. The ASA feels to achieve this requires: — Investment in facilities. — Investment in training of staV.

Facilities 15. The Select Committee was made aware of the parlous state of many of the public swimming facilities and school pools and it would be true to say that the situation has not improved. Indeed we hear more reports concerning closures or possible closures than we do of new or replacement pools being built or refurbishments taking place. 16. Additionally the Committee also received information on the role played by the Sport England Lottery Fund in providing capital for swimming pool projects and whilst this has continued at a somewhat lower level with investment in a number of projects, the future for funding from this source now looks exceedingly bleak. 17. The Government has put in place a number of national programmes designed to invest in the building of new facilities and upgrading existing ones but to date the eVect on swimming facilities appears to be fairly minimal when viewed against the need, over the next few years, of an estimated expenditure of over £2 billion just to maintain the status quo. Indeed, in terms of swimming, the government target of no one living more than 20 minutes away from a sports facility by 2008 will be diYcult to meet unless there is a specific investment programme aimed at improving the swimming pool stock. 18. We support the Government contention that if children and young people can be given the habit of exercising from an early age and easy ways provided of continuing to exercise out of school, they are more likely to stay active into adult hood. We were therefore enthused by the “Building Schools for the Future” (BSF) programme only to find that whilst other school sports facilities which could also be used by the community were included, swimming pools were not. Whilst anecdotal, we have heard of community schools built in the 70’s with a swimming pool, which are to be replaced under the BSF programme, where the new school will not include a swimming pool unless this can be funded from another source. This is a missed opportunity, particularly in areas where there is a poor provision of swimming facilities and runs contrary to Sport England policy on community use of schools. 19. If we are to encourage the increasing numbers of participants in swimming envisaged by the Government, facility provision will need to be an important part of any strategy. 3049211001 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 103

20. We see pools of the future being designed to be accessible and flexible with the aim of maximising participation and where appropriate being a part of a “whole” community facility being linked into schools where these are well sited for community access or linking into the development of libraries, health centres, community halls and multi sports facilities etc. The whole, however, is contingent upon appropriate funding mechanisms being available to build and manage these facilities for the community they serve.

Investment in Training—Professionals 21. The ASA is developing alongside the UK Coaching Certificate a new training programme for “Healthy Living Coaches” who can bring to the pool some of the culture of the fitness room where the customer is valued and supported through their experience. 22. Swimming remains the one activity that can make perhaps the biggest single impact on obesity and health. The need for Strategic investment is now. Funding for the ASA from Sport England is the same today as it was yesterday despite all the work in developing a Whole Sport Plan. The ASA believes working with its traditional partners and new partners in the commercial sector it can drive participation up in swimming by 1% each year. This is an ambitious target and one that cries out for investment from Government to work with the ASA in putting its activity strategy into place. The ASA has called for: — Investment into training with the ASA able to access directly Learning and Skills Council funding for a national training programme for people in the aquatic business. — A network of 45 Swimming Activity co-ordinators to be appointed linked to County Sport Partnerships to stimulate activity locally.

Investment in Training—Volunteers 23. Like all sports, participation at grass roots level relies very heavily upon volunteers. Swimming is no exception and there are some 50,000 volunteers giving almost 3 million hours of their time per year. Without this level of unpaid service, which can involve teaching, coaching, lifeguarding, acting as an oYcial for competition, administration and even just taking children by car to events the sport would struggle to survive. 24. Also the work of the volunteer get more diYcult as the years progress with new legislation, health and safety matters and in this increasingly litigious society the threat of civil and even criminal action. As a result training is of the utmost importance and the ASA have found it necessary to appoint a Volunteer Co- ordinator with the responsibility of recruiting and supporting volunteers, ensuring that they follow a programme of training and development. 25. Funding is provided through the “Step into Sport” programme but like many other funding programmes there is no certainty of the level of funding from year to year or even its continuance. The role of the volunteer is critical to grass roots sport as is the finance to provide the necessary training.

Accessibility and Affordability 26. Swimming has a vital role to play in the promotion of healthy living, the prevention of illness, the treatment of illness and disability and social development and interaction amongst people of all ages. However the problems for many people who would wish to swim are those of accessibility and aVordability, which we consider, are linked. 27. We welcome therefore the initiatives to provide free swimming for children which, if correctly managed, can help develop the habit of exercise. To help develop this habit of exercise, however, we believe that there should be an element of structure and progression through appropriate pathways in these schemes in order to maintain interest. Whilst obviously we would wish to see an increase in the numbers taking up competitive swimming as an activity, we also see the progression element as being an opportunity to introduce children to a wide range of water based activities in the safe environment of the swimming pool. 28. We also welcome the initiatives, which are under consideration, regarding the extension of free swimming to older people for whom swimming is ideally suited, putting very little strain on the body. 29. We see these initiatives as positive moves but we still have concerns relating to our swimming clubs. Whilst the inquiry is about grass roots sport we believe this includes all our clubs, apart from those at Elite Level, the large majority of whose membership is under 16 years of age. 30. Clubs have diYculty in obtaining access to pools in relation to suitable times of the day and also the number of hours available for hire. Many clubs are working towards a national club accreditation standard that is compatible with Sport England’s Club mark scheme, however to reach standards set, clubs find it diYcult to access appropriate pool time. 31. The solution lies in sympathetic management but in many instances commercial pressures prevail. Or there is a sad lack of understanding as to how clubs oVer a community service. 3049211001 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 104 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

32. Commercial considerations also prevail over social gain in regard to aVordability with the hire of a standard 25 metre by 6 lane pool for an hour varying with diVerent local authorities from a low of around £25 where swimming is seen as a community service to over £100 where “bottom line” finance prevails. Whilst it would be wrong to generalise there is some evidence that higher charges prevail where public pools are managed by commercial undertakings. 33. We understand that consideration is being given to making free swimming for children more widely available and we would suggest that this consideration should be coupled with the role of clubs and how those clubs with a large number of children in their membership could also benefit from some system of concessions.

Promotion 34. Raising awareness is crucial to changing behaviour—people need to understand that sport is good for them and have an appreciation of how they can get involved. The three countries that have demonstrated consistent increases in participation rates in physical activity over significant periods of time (Canada, New Zealand and Finland) have all benefited from the imaginative, consistent, sustained and well-funded deployment of marketing campaigns to stimulate a culture of physical activity. 35. The potential of concerted awareness and information campaigns to encourage more positive attitudes to health issues has been demonstrated by the anti-smoking campaign. This was supported by clear and unambiguous messages about the dangers of smoking. We believe that in addition to government campaigns regarding exercise there should be targeted campaigns on specific activities such as swimming. 36. However, the raising of awareness should be accompanied by access to appropriate and aVordable opportunities in well designed, safe environments, supported by a high quality workforce.

Summary 37. The ASA believes that sport has an immense role to play in improving people’s lives—providing fun, exercise, better health and a way out for those caught up in crime and drugs. Learning to swim is a gateway to many sporting activities and a pre-requisite for life long participation. 38. We welcome the support given by the government to swimming, without which many of the improvements now taking place would not have been possible. Nevertheless we have concerns which are set out in this paper and may be summarised as follows: Learn to swim — Funding pressures on school swimming. — The need for public and private facilities for swimming tuition to meet national performance criteria. Lifelong Participation — The need for adequate investment in facilities. — The need for investment in staV and volunteer training with direct access to Learning & Skills Council funding nationally where appropriate. — The need to ensure appropriate pathways for health related swimming and personal development from free swimming initiatives. — The need to ensure appropriate access at reasonable costs for club swimming. Funding — The Whole Sport Plan has assisted with flexibility but the level of funding is sometimes only confirmed for a year at a time. A rolling plan with forecasts of grant is needed. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Association of British Athletic Clubs

The Demise of British Athletics from Grass Roots to Elite The fundamental failure in athletics to increase participation and improve or even maintain standards throughout the sport over the past eight years must be laid squarely at the door of the current administration, UK Athletics and their stakeholders, Sport England and UK Sport. UKA adopted a policy where lottery funding is exclusively devoted to established World Class Potential and Potential Olympic medallists and as a consequence crucial financial support for the clubs to enable them to best develop grass roots potential was and is ignored. 3049211002 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 105

Since 1997, following the bankruptcy of the British Athletics Federation, a new administrative body, UK Athletics was set up and funded by Sport England. Senior personnel were appointed by Sport England tasked to deliver a more successful British Athletics with international championship medal targets and world standards to be improved across the board. But after eight years and more than £45 million pounds of public money largely wasted on a growing bureaucratic athletics administration, whose mantra appears to have been “think up a title and we’ll appoint somebody” and referred to by many as being ineVective, autocratic, uncommunicative and out of touch. Crucially, none of their stated targets (which were the basis for their public funding) have been achieved. As a consequence our sport is spiralling into terminal decline: — The peak age for participation in athletics as measured by club membership throughout the country is 12–13. Thereafter each year it dramatically declines. By age 20 only 10% of the peak level remains. It continues to decline until 35 where it begins to rise again through to 45 to match the 20 year age group. This is due to veteran athletics being popular where the vast majority take part in road races. (middle age crisis!) — Standards for all age groups and in all events have dramatically declined over the last 20–30 years. Schools national championships and club county championships are shadows of their former days. Participation levels are at their lowest ever. In some events in many counties, merely turning up guarantees a medal! — Winning performances in almost every event at County, Area and Territorial championships and even in some cases the national championships (incorporating international championships and Games trials) would not qualify for a final between 1972–85. — The London Marathon and Great North Runs have evolved into essentially social fun events and their growth cannot be attributed to serious runners. (those who train and race regularly throughout the year.) The majority age group by far is 35–45 years old and in each year over the last twenty the standard of performance has fallen, eg, in 1985 in the London marathon over 100 British runners were faster than 2 hours 20 minutes. Last year only 10 managed to beat that time and the previous year the first Briton to finish was a woman. 20 years ago the first British women was behind over 200 British men. Verified in detail at www.britishathletics.info The clubs, who are the sport and provide and deliver each new generation of international athletes through a mainly unpaid, voluntary body of coaches and oYcials to provide the necessary competition structure and infrastructure for the sport, have been virtually and deliberately ignored. UKA decided from the beginning they did not need to involve the clubs over policy, strategy or with funding to help deliver the sport. They decided they alone could identify and develop the talent that came through the clubs and set about creating professional posts within their own organisation to do so. Unfortunately, qualification, expertise and experience appeared to be less important than face fitting. UKA’s strategies have produced nothing new of any significance at world level. There has been no inclusive and comprehensive development strategy in linking schools to clubs, identifying talent and creating the pathway from foundation to excellence and international standards. Ten Regional Development Co- ordinators were appointed to develop links (at an overall cost of £700.000 per year) but their unquantified success only scratches the surface of a nation teaming with latent potential international talent.

Elite Level Lottery funding including the World Class Potential plan did not return value for money. Performance Centres were set up, Regional Performance Managers, Technical Directors and a host of other support staV were engaged to deliver world class athletics and to build for the future but the results spoke for themselves. Our last two Olympic Games and four World Championships during UKA’s tenure fell far short of expectations and even most of our previous achievements at global events. We failed to send full teams because most of our lottery funded athletes did not achieve the qualifying standards. Over 50% of those funded did not qualify for Athens. Our UKA lauded juniors came away from their world track & field championships for the first time without a single medal. The recent World Cross Country Championships were the worse we have ever recorded and across six championship races including the two junior events our highest position was from a junior girl in 20th place. At the recent and prestigious European Challenge 10,000 metres, Britain had no representative either male or female. The UKA Endurance Director is quoted as saying that there is no point in trying to compete with Africans at distances above 1,500 metres! Our most famous and successful athletes of recent times are or were almost all in their early to mid thirties and were world class before the advent of UKA.

Grass Roots Development Some school age schemes for “fun” athletics were in place or were newly initiated, some of which were in themselves successful and popular but no progressive and regular competition structure was available to maintain enthusiasm and purpose and no attempt was made to help support the real breeding ground for developing talent, ie, the clubs. 3049211002 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 106 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Active Sports—not readily linked to Sport England’s other initiatives: Active Community or Active School. No delivery mechanism. No coherent strategy. — Star Track—a single week of athletics experience in school holidays usually run by local authorities. Little or no club expertise involved. Little or no follow-up, no competition structure no planned onward link. — Sports Hall Athletics—Highly successful and popular especially for 11–13 age children but again little or no direct link to suitable clubs. — Shine Awards—an initiative similar to the previously long established 5 star awards. Good in content but complex and required skills from teachers to produce—no development link and lost the AAA’s £700,000 (as shown in the minutes of the 2004 AGM) when it was promised by UKA that it would create revenue of £100,000 per year to go back in to club coaching development. What was fundamentally overlooked was the fact that previously the schools created revenue for themselves with the 5 star awards but with Shine it did not. No incentive for schools, interest has declined. — Some of the Policy Support team, drawn mainly from voluntary athletics coaches and invited to help formulate and modify initiatives for developing the sport at grass roots, reported they felt that UKA did not suYciently listen to them. “They have their agenda and don’t really want to change anything” said one disillusioned top level coach. Unless there are clear, positive and progressive links from what is oVered in schools and local communities through to athletics clubs, there is no development to ensure that young potential is guided, motivated and supported to stay in the sport and achieve their ultimate potential, possibly culminating in an Olympic Games. All of the above “stand alone” initiatives are worthwhile and valid as an athletics experience (mostly one oV) but unless they are part of an overall strategic plan they cannot provide the necessary steps along the pathway to success and the achievement of full potential. That pathway generally requires: 1. Clubs that are appropriately equipped and have suYcient qualified coaches. 2. Guidance at suitable training venues through paid qualified coaches/teachers in all events at all levels. 3. An appropriate competition structure also linked to progressive levels: Without regular structured competition there is little incentive for children and particularly adolescents to take up and remain in the sport. 4. Significant (career structure) funding going directly to clubs on an individual performance basis to incentivise athletes and coaches. 5. Substantially increased funding for the National Young Athletes League (a long proven competition structure for our future potential Olympic medallists which has included, Olympic Champions, Seb Coe, Daly Thompson and silver medallist, Peter Elliott) nb: It is incredible that the one proven organisation for the development of talent in “proper athletics” receives only £80,000 per year from UKA.—less than either the CEO or deputy CEO’s salary. Ten times that amount could change the face of British athletics for the future. 6. A nation-wide individual competition structure of six to eight times per season for each (graded) event and all age groups where everyone can compete against the best of the rest, in addition to the existing leagues, County, Area and National championships which in themselves would be revitalised.

Overview

Athletics is a complex multifaceted sport made up of diVerent, hugely varying, disciplines. Its very nature appeals to a wide range of talent and requires a wide range of specialist coaches to deliver it across all age groups and gender. It is, of course, desirable and highly worthwhile to have initiatives for the young and aspiring internationals who choose to participate but it requires a greater depth of direct funding for clubs and schools to succeed and far less costly, undemocratic and bureaucratic administrations draining available funding from where it could be best used. It is because of a UKA’s failure to deliver, that the sport has determined to form the Association of British Athletics Clubs (ABAC) to gather together its expertise and by its voice help formulate the proper and better use of any future public funding. 5 April 2005 3049211003 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 107

Memorandum submitted by Badminton England

Auditing The auditing process to establish baseline data needs to be improved to provide significant and reliable statistics, this needs planning and funding. Increasing participation at a local level could be addressed by more providing even more reliable stream of Community Sports Coaches if targets are to be met.

Recommendation 1. The whole concept (CSCS) could do with refining so that implementation is more clear—ie deploying multi-skilled coaches before a training programme was in place may perhaps seem like the cart before the horse.

PESSCL

Volunteering BADMINTON England currently has a dynamic programme that is addressing the recruitment, retention and rewarding of volunteers in line with our redefined strategy, by — Advertising the benefits of volunteering — Attending World Class Events — Celebrating the Yonex (our sponsor) Volunteer of the Year Award (two categories—adult and young person) — BADMINTON England dedicate a full page for volunteering in the badminton magazine — BADMINTON England has included a club volunteer co-ordinator as an element in the Club Accreditation Scheme (Silver Clubmark) — Promote leadership awards (CSLA & JSLA) — BISI (Badminton into Schools Initiative) OYcials awards to recognise 14! volunteers — Volunteer Pathway identified — Training resources under review We believe are baseline data knowledge is not robust but will be addressing this through re-registration for our membership later in the year.

Recommendations 1. To further support the PESSCL programme by ensuring clubs nationally are accredited, LEAs, LA facilities and Operations Management need to oVer a stronger lead by confirming the benefits for clubs to engage more vigorously on the programme. This lead needs to come from DCMS. 2. We have invested in our volunteers’ programme, but further funding to help clubs recruit and train, particularly young volunteers, could be an asset. 2005 is the Year of the Volunteer but the ability to celebrate and support this initiative is not possible witout funding support from DCMS/Sport England—advertising it alone is not likely to energise others.

Participation

Adults from BEM communities Focussed programmes, that target these groups are still too infrequent, and positive incentives to provide for them remain too few. Active Sports does not seem to have delivered against these targets as was first anticipated. BADMINTON England recognises that it has a great capacity to engage with these communities given the high quality and number of successful elite athletes that play the game from Eastern countries. We do intend to pilot some work to address this and will look to engage Women especially from these communities. Yet again investing resources is an issue, and needs more training in order to raise awareness properly. Sharing good practice from other successful schemes would greatly assist in this process. Too few from these communities are currently involved with sport despite the success as role models that some female athletes provide. Even within the WSP funding such programmes for many sports may not be seen as a priority. Too much info in newspapers and on the TV focuses on too few sports. BADMINTON England would be keen to learn where female ethnic groups currently exist to that some direct contact could be made. 3049211003 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 108 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Recommendations 1. Stronger lead from DCMS to assist in programme delivery. 2. Clearer proforma/action plans to assist with delivery of such programmes. 3. Produce more info where female ethnic groups operate and who leads them. 4. More funding to promote this—with an oYcer appointed across interested sports to take a lead. 5. DCMS/Sport England to influence TV Broadcastings and journalists to widen their horizons beyond the Big Four Sports.

Participation Adults Whilst much of the current focus is on young people (Active Sports Programmes almost exclusively) investment in adults has been limited, unless it is a by-product of something else. Badminton, like tennis has an initial problem with facilities—booking them in Leisure Centres is not easy —they as so often given over to five-a-side football, which defeats the concept of equity versus a commercial/business plan and choices within a community. A club can quickly become at capacity with numbers/court ratio. Provision should be made for social sport players as well as those who are recognised as able—badminton clubs often do not have the capacity to accept social players whose standards are perceived as too low. Whilst NGBs now have an opportunity to write a four-year plan, funding is not guaranteed and this position cannot comfortably relate to forward planning with any confidence. To achieve the targets as set out in Game Plan will fail unless there is a more coherent, comprehensive integrated manner of working across the diVerent sectors. A greater recognition that some social players may only be interested in playing at their level—the option of winning/ losing may not be the focus. Those of us who are involved in sport believe that sport is a competitive animal, but for some this may not be the case and yet there seems little proactive support for such “players”.

Recommendations 1. Balance of sporting provision within any community that relates to desire and interest. 2. Research into how many facilities could be available—school-halls, church halls etc (specific to badminton). 3. Building partnerships to sustain programmes that were introduced through Lottery, but have now been withdrawn. 4. Ensuring that a full business plan is in place before encouraging activity to ensure that it is sustainable and not just of the moment. 5. More holiday programmes—for children and parents/carers. 6. Better marketing policies for building capacity in centres. 7. Wycombe Badminton Club is adjacent to the out of town shopping complex by Junction 4 (M40)— need to create a sponsorship relationship with those shops to get shoppers into the centre (a recommendation for a possible new initiative). 8. Invest in more facilities in public places (parks). 9. More and better marketing of opportunities for adults to participate. 10. Research the needs (gap in needs) in a single community and provide for that need. 11. Have clearer pathways to link sport with the other agendas that will create a healthier population— it is all too ad hoc. 12. Develop a programme that is aimed at a family culture of taking part in sport focussing on Leisure Centres and Community Centres whereby fun is the focus disguising the competitive element (This could attract/appeal those adults who do not feel overtly competitive).

Summary Overview Whilst to many who are already highly involved in sport and recognise the positive benefits that sport gives to those who take part, from mental health and well-being to building of self esteem and social skills, the investment in sport in England and the UK at grassroots does not seem to match this recognition. So much more could be achieved, to the nation’s benefit, with better and improved programmes/initiatives that emerge out of thorough consultation with those who operate at this level and for whom these programmes/ initiatives are intended, and are prepared by those who are steeped in knowledge and not simply self advancement. 29 March 2005 3049211004 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 109

Memorandum submitted by the Big Lottery Fund

The Big Lottery Fund welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into “Community Sport” and I am pleased to enclose our submission.

The Big Lottery Fund recognises the important role that community sport can play in the well-being of communities. To date the Big Lottery Fund (and its legacy organisations—the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund) has committed over £900 million to projects related to and supporting community sport. This submission outlines the relevant funding programmes to this inquiry and also highlights the key findings of the evaluation reports into this funding identifying areas of (non) participation, the impact of National Lottery Funding and learning for future funding.

Summary

1. The Big Lottery Fund welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into “Community Sport”. 2. The Big Lottery Fund is the joint operating name for two National Lottery Distributing Bodies— The Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. The Big Lottery Fund aims to use National Lottery funding to enable others to make real improvements to the lives of disadvantaged people and to promote the well being of communities, through fair and open funding of people, projects and programmes. Between them the two Bodies have committed over £900 million to projects related to and supporting community sport: — The Community Fund has awarded over £2.5 million in grants to projects concerned with diet and exercise. These projects typically include exercise clubs for older people and initiatives targeted at particular ethnic groups. — The New Opportunities Fund has delivered programmes to support education, health and environment initiatives across the UK. There are a number of funding programmes relevant to this inquiry including: £750.75 million of National Lottery money committed through the “New Opportunities for PE and Sport” programme to provide school sport facilities for young people and the community generally with the aim of increasing participation in physical activity. To date approximately 2,500 facilities have been funded in the UK; under the joint operating name, the Big Lottery Fund, £100 million has been committed to fund country specific projects through the “Investment into Community Sport in the UK” programme aimed at increasing physical activity, especially amongst the currently inactive; the “Out of Hours/School Sport Co-ordinators” programme has committed £26.29 million to support projects that aim to increase young people’s out of school physical activity; the Active Places programme has received £2 million of Big Lottery Fund money to establish a register of sports facilities; and the Fund has supported a pilot Regional Health and Physical Activity Co-ordinator post, lessons from which will help inform the development of such posts in each of the Government regions. 3. The Big Lottery Fund, through the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund has been careful to ensure, given the large amounts of money involved and indeed the high impact expectation of such funding, that strong and credible partnerships are formed in delivering and assessing the impact and eVectiveness of funding. All funding programmes made under the New Opportunities Fund are subject to independent assessment, the results of which are outlined in this submission. Future programmes developed under the Big Lottery Fund will also be submitted to an independent evaluation process. 4. A number of our funding projects have not yet reached full evaluation stage. However, nominal findings to date suggest that partnerships between sports and other sectors (ie sports and health), the development of new facilities and the employment of experienced and dedicated staV to develop community use of community facilities all have a role to play in encouraging involvement in community sport. 5. As a result of its recent public consultation1 the Big Lottery Fund recognises that there is a demand for funding that relates to and supports community sport. The Big Lottery Fund has announced some of its new funding programmes to 2009, elements of which relate to and support promoting physical activity and community sport.

The Big Lottery Fund—Background

6. On 1 June 2004, two National Lottery Distributors, the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund, merged to become the Big Lottery Fund.

1 Big Lottery Fund Consultation Phase 1 findings, February 2005. 3049211005 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 110 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

7. The New Opportunities Fund delivers programmes to support education, health and environment initiatives across the UK. Since the Fund’s inception in 1999, we have committed over £3.5 billion to these areas. The Fund’s programmes cover a wide range of issues relevant to this inquiry, including increasing participation in physical activity, public health, healthy living and improving the environment. 8. The Community Fund distributes money from the National Lottery to projects across the UK to help meet the needs of those at greatest disadvantage in society and to improve the quality of life in communities. To date, the Community Fund has distributed £2.6 billion to 56,000 charities and community groups across the UK. The Community Fund has awarded over £2.5 million in grants to projects concerned with diet and exercise. The Community Fund makes grants to the voluntary and community sector, who play a vital role in reaching the most disadvantaged sectors of society. This means that many projects funded have targeted those communities and areas that most need support to develop a healthy lifestyle. 9. The new body will build on the experience and best practice of both organisations to simplify funding in those areas where they currently overlap, and to ensure lottery funding provides the best possible value for money. The Big Lottery Fund wants to enable others to make real improvements to the lives of disadvantaged people and the well-being of communities, through fair and open funding of people, projects and programmes. 10. To achieve this, we have six principles that will underpin all our work: fairness, accessibility, strategic focus, involving people, innovation, and ensuring that our funding is additional to Government spending. In addition we have introduced a set of themes and associated outcomes to provide a framework for our future funding. The three themes are: — Community learning and creating opportunity — Promoting community cohesion and safety — Promoting well-being. 11. The themes are UK wide but the outcomes and priorities are related to the needs of each of the countries in the UK. 12. In England we have recently consulted on this framework2 (consultation in each of the countries is currently underway) and on the priorities that would help us achieve each of the four outcomes. Any future programmes that we develop will be based around the six principles, the themes and outcomes will be guided by what the public are telling us through our consultation, as well as building on the experiences and strengths of the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund.

Specific Funding Programmes Relating and Supporting Community Sport 13. Detailed below are a number of funding programmes relevant to this inquiry. In each case the programme aims and objectives are outlined, and where available, information from the evaluation report into that programme summarised.

New Opportunities for PE and Sport (NOPES) 14. In the UK £750.75 million of lottery money has been invested in the New Opportunities for PE and Sport programme. Launched in 2001, this is the largest single programme investment specifically for school sport to date. The programme aims to bring about a step change in the provision of school sports not only for young people but also for the community generally. To this end up to 20% of the funding available may be used to stimulate and support appropriate community use. 15. By providing new and improving existing facilities the programme aims to increase participation in physical activity of both school children, in and out of curriculum time, and the wider community. The programme also aims to have a long-term impact on wider social issues facing local communities such as education, health and crime. The Fund expects that all but the smallest projects will need to demonstrate how the wider community will use the facility. This is reflected in the six key outcomes that have been identified for this programme. These are:

— improved physical education and sport in schools (supporting the entitlement of two hours (1.5 in Northern Ireland) of high quality PE and sport each week, within and beyond the curriculum); — higher standards across the whole school through PE, sport and other forms of structured activity (as set out in school development plans); — better opportunities to increase the levels of physical activity among the school age population and, more generally, local communities (supporting the health recommendations for levels of physical activity for young people and adults);

2 Big Lottery Fund Consultation Phase 2. The Results will be published in May 2005. 3049211005 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 111

— improved collaboration, co-operation and partnership between schools and between schools and their communities; — promotion of social inclusion through access to and use of sports and outdoor adventure facilities by all groups in society; and — innovation and best practice in the design and management of facilities. 16. In addition to the above (but included in the overall sum), in Scotland £36.3 million has been committed to a separate activities programme which sits along side the facilities strand. This funding is purely for revenue programmes that aim to develop physical abilities and improve opportunities to increase levels of physical activity among young people. 17. The overall programme is on course so that the great majority of new facilities will be in use by Spring 2006. Policy directions for the programme stated that all funding should be committed by the end of 2005. However, all funding in Wales and 98.8% of funding in England (barring those with Building Schools for the Future issues and specific individual circumstances) was committed by December 2004—one year ahead of schedule. This means to date, in the UK just under 2,500 projects have been funded totalling just over £587 million. In the UK, Just under 600 projects are now complete. Projects include playground marking schemes, changing rooms, dance studios, artificial pitches, fitness suites and three-, four- and six-court sport halls. Examples of projects funded are given in Annex A.

New Opportunities for PE and Sport (NOPES)—Evaluation

18. The programme is being evaluated by the Loughborough Partnership, led by the Institute of Youth Sport. It is structured around the following dimensions of the programme: —eVectiveness of partnership working; — quality of individual projects in stimulating increased participation; and — capacity of greater levels of participation to generate social change. 19. A key element of the evaluation is to capture participation in physical activity of young people and men and women from the wider community. This is primarily achieved through the distribution of a survey to all projects before opening (to capture a baseline) and then one and three years after opening (to measure any change that has occurred). 20. In England, baseline findings to date indicate that NOPES facilities have been built in schools where facilities were sorely needed, with respondents rating their existing facilities before the programme as below average. 21. With regards participation of children and young people in physical activity, in England the current findings show that pupils in primary and secondary schools (that have returned a baseline survey to date) receive an average of 101 minutes of PE and sport in curriculum time per week. Across schools that have been given a grant of more then £125,000, and who have returned the baseline survey to date findings show: — 73% of boys and 70% of girls are receiving their two hours of PE and sport entitlement within curriculum time. — Approximately 80% of schools already run lunchtime and after school PE and sport opportunities, with an average of approximately eight hours after school and over four hours lunchtime activity available in a typical week. 22. Early evidence from five fast track projects, that began before the main projects in the programme, suggest that school-based facilities have had an immediate and positive eVect on curriculum PE and extra- curricular activities. Providing high quality facilities has meant that pupils have been able to have lessons at the same time and the range of activities oVered to them has been increased. At one school for instance this has meant girl only activities are now oVered. At another extra curricular activities now include activities where able bodied and disabled pupils can mix and participate with friends and relatives. More data on impact will be available in January 2006 which we will be happy to share with the Committee. 23. With regard wider community use, there is an expectation in the programme that all but the smallest projects will be used by the community. Early findings indicate that project staV often see the programme as a catalyst for schools to becoming the hub of the community—in fact, of the larger projects, 95% state one of their aims is to improve collaboration, co-operation and partnership between schools and their communities. Current community use is low, showing that the programme has the potential to make a significant impact in this area. However while being committed to increasing community use, in the first six months of opening the evaluation has found that impacting on participation in the wider community is often a big and new challenge for these schools. Funding for experienced, dedicated staV to develop community use has been instrumental in successfully embedding community use for some fast track projects. The evaluation will consider whether this finding can be generalised across other facilities in the programme. 3049211006 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 112 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

24. Qualitative case study work in local authorities will seek to explore in more detail the three main dimension of the evaluation noted above. In particular, the evaluators will explore why some people participate while others don’t. This will be supported by a discrete piece of work with excluded young people. It is hoped that all this work will contribute to the current evidence base about what works in encouraging further participation. Early data from the case study work suggests how new facilities have enabled greater community participation. At one school for instance parents are able to use the new fitness suite while their children are participating in net ball. 25. The evaluation is set to run until January 2009. Regular updates on findings to date are made available through quarterly newsletters and evaluation website: www.nopesevaluation.org.uk. I have enclosed, for your information, a summary of the evaluation that covered the first 18 months of the programme. I am happy to provide the Committee with the full report on year two findings on request.

Investment into Community Sport 26. The Big Lottery Fund has invested £100 million into community sport in the UK. Although each of the countries in the UK have developed their own programmes, to reflect their local context and need, all the programmes are focused on increasing physical activity, especially amongst the currently inactive. A summary of the UK wide investment is provided in Annex B and an outline of the country specific programmes are detailed below:

Active England 27. The Government strategy for delivering its sport and physical activity objectives, Game Plan3, set a target of 70% of the population in England being reasonably active (eg 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times per week) by 2020. The Active England investment programme seeks to begin the step-change required in physical activity and sports participation levels by supporting a number of innovative projects that demonstrate their ability to work towards this target. 28. In total The National Lottery is investing £108.5 million in Active England, £77.5 million from the Big Lottery Fund and £31 million from Sport England. Launched in December 2003, the programme aims to encourage creative approaches that will begin to drive up physical activity levels and sports participation rates in England. Although aimed at increasing participation among all the sections of society, it focuses in particular on those sections of society that are typically under-represented in sport and physical activity participation. 29. Funded projects, which are currently being developed until March 2006, will aim to address the perceived barriers to participation in sport and physical activity. Barriers include lack of money, lack of transport, cultural diVerences and constraints of time. It is also hoped that Active England projects will create new working partnerships both between sports and between sectors, eg sport and health and create new training and development opportunities for key enablers such as coaches and voluntary workers. 30. The Government is keen that these facilities are seen as the regional dividend of the 2012 London Olympic Bid. This allows an excellent opportunity to promote grassroots physical activity alongside any promotional work undertaken by the London bid. 31. To date, £102 million has been committed or spent on just over 250 projects. Examples of projects can be found in Annex C.

Active England—Evaluation 32. The programme is being evaluated by independent research and evaluation consultants, Hall Aitken and Bearhunt. The evaluation will measure how the programme has increased participation in sport and physical activity for all sections of society but in particular those sectors of society that typically do not take part in physical activity. The evaluators will be working with individual projects to develop monitoring and evaluation frameworks for measuring the success of each project and feed the information into the overall programme evaluation. 33. Good practice will be identified on both a project basis and by themes. This information will be disseminated through a variety of techniques including, national conferences, the Active England Learning Zone website, learning groups where like projects share ideas either virtually or in organised cluster groups, DVD presentations and through the Sport England Innovation exchange 34. The first evaluation report will be available by March 2006.

3 “Game Plan: A Strategy for delivering the governments’ sport and physical activity objectives”, was jointly published by the government’s Social Exclusion Unit and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on 19 December 2002. 3049211006 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 113

Active Futures and Youth Football in Scotland

35. In Scotland £6 million is going towards supporting the Scottish Executive’s objectives for youth sport development in particular increasing the number of players and raising the standard of all levels of youth football in Scotland. A further £5.5 million will fund Active Futures which will support projects that increase or sustain participation in sport and physical activity among 17–24 year olds. Active Futures was launched in November 2004. Projects are due to begin in 2006, with all funding to be committed by December 2006.

Mentro Allan in Wales

36. Launched in November 2004, Mentro Allan is committing £6.5 million to develop a number of co- ordinated schemes across Wales aimed at getting hard to reach groups more active using the natural environment. A national level partnership will be appointed to deliver a strategic portfolio of 10–15 local schemes across Wales. The successful partnership will be announced in June 2005 with all grants awarded by June 2006. Project funding will be for four years, and there is a strong emphasis on evaluation to build up a body of evidence that can inform future policy.

Active Lifestyles and Community Sport programme in Northern Ireland

37. In Northern Ireland £2.4 million has been committed to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland’s (SCNI) to develop and enhance their existing pilot Community Sport programme. Launched in September 2004, Active Lifestyles commits a further £2.1 million to fund activities that aim to increase grassroots participation in physical activity. Projects are due to begin in 2005, with all funding to be committed by December 2006.

Country Community Sport—Evaluation

38. A single evaluation contract will be commissioned to assess impact of the community sport investment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This work will seek to compliment and build on other work measuring participation in sport and physical activity.

Out of School Hours Learning/School Sport Co-ordinators (OSHL/SSCo)

39. In addition to the above the Fund has committed £26.29 million to support projects that aim to increase young peoples out of school hours physical activity. 40. In England, funding has been put towards supporting the joint DfES/DCMS School Sport Co- ordinator programme (now known as School Sport Partnerships). The purpose of the programme is to increase sports opportunities and promote competition for young people through co-ordinated PE, school sport and out of school hours learning activities that link with local community sports facilities and development programmes. It focuses particularly on areas of disadvantage and recognises the role that schools and sport can play in addressing dissatisfaction among young people and how physical activity and sport can assist in improving well being and learning. 41. The Fund’s strand of the programme is funding sport related learning activities for young people outside of school curriculum time. In line with Government targets set for the programme in 2001, the OSHL/SSCo programme has supported activity in School Sport Co-ordinator Partnerships with the first 1,000 SSCos. In addition it should be noted that the Fund has invested £205 million to the main Out of School Hours Learning programme. A great many of the projects supported in this programme were sports based. Examples of projects can be found in Annex D. 42. In Scotland, the fund awarded sportscotland a grant to manage and co-ordinate the OSHL/SSCo programme. Sportscotland is delivering the programme through its existing network of school-based SSCos to compliment its Active Schools Strategy. 43. In Northern Ireland, the money is being used by SSCos in Education and Library Boards to deliver activities to pupils who do not normally take part in sport activities and those at risk of exclusion from school and also young people with special needs. 44. In Wales this funding has supported a programme of extending school sports activities particularly in primary schools and in the transition to secondary schools. The Programme complements the Welsh Assembly Government’s PE and School Sports strategy and the Dragon Sport initiative. 3049211007 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 114 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Out of School Hours Learning/School Sport Co-ordinators (OSHL/SSCo)—Evaluation

45. The evaluation of the School Sport Partnership programme, led by the Institute of Youth Sport is collecting data on participation in curricular and out of school hours PE & sport activities within School Sport Partnerships in England. 46. The end of year one report, out in April 2005, shows that the partnerships are having considerable success in increasing participation amongst pupils at the partnership schools, and provides a detailed breakdown based on gender, ethnic minority and disability. By 2006 it is planned that all schools in England will be in a School Sport Partnership, so a more comprehensive picture will become available when they’re all included in the annual surveys.

Active Places

47. A total of £5.2 million (£2 million from the Big Lottery Fund and £3.2 million from Sport England) has been invested from the lottery into the Active Places register of sports facilities. This has established one authoritative register of sports facilities in England, in place of current systems where many diVerent organisations with an interest in sport collect and separately maintain information to varying definitions, formats and completeness. In addition to helping members of the public to locate facilities and activities that they might wish to participate in, the Register and the information contained within it will have an invaluable role to play in the planning and delivery of new sport and active recreation services.

Regional Health and Physical Activity Co-ordinator

48. As part of the Healthy Living Centre programme, the Big Lottery Fund has funded a Regional Health and Physical Activity Co-ordinator (RHPAC) three year pilot project in the North West to bring together Regional Government OYces and Development Agencies, the Regional Sports Board, Local Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, the voluntary sector and the fitness industry. A key strand of the co-ordinator’s role is the establishment of a regional physical activity task force charged with co-ordinating delivery of the physical activity aspects of the regional public health plan in tandem with the Regional Sports Board plan. The project has been awarded £286,000 lottery funding.

Regional Health and Physical Activity Co-ordinator—Evaluation

49. The evaluation of this position will seek to provide robust evidence of the eVectiveness of the post, whether it has made a significant contribution to joined-up working between physical activity and health programmes/initiatives in comparison to working methods already in place and whether the post has oVered significant return for the investment. The evaluation will also inform any decision to introduce similar projects in other Government regions.

Future Programmes

50. As detailed above, the Fund is committed to the broader agenda of increasing participation in grassroots sport. This commitment will continue into our new programmes. Emphasis in the future will be on “healthier and more active people and communities’ and increasing participation in physical activity is seen as a core element of this. To this end the Fund have made a commitment to allocating £165 million from 2005–09 to strategic programmes around well being that will include the support of projects that promote community sport, physical activity, walking and cycling as part of everyday activities4.

Further information

51. Further details, including evaluation and research information, about the programmes can be found on www.biglotteryfund.org.uk.

4 For more information see press release “Big Lottery Fund Confirms New Funding Programmes for England” 30 March 2005. 3049211007 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 115

Annex A

Big Lottery Fund—New Opportunities in PE and Sport—Case studies Lead Organisation: Leicester City Council, Fulhurst Community College Sports Hall Amount Awarded: £968,276 Project description: Leicester LEA will construct a new four court sports hall, changing facilities and classroom at Fullhurst Community College. It will benefit students, seven other local schools and a wide variety of community groups by supporting the delivery of PE curriculum, extra curricular activities and community sports. Activities will include basketball, wheelchair basketball, five a side football, badminton, netball, short tennis, bowls, and trampolining. These sports can not take place within the existing facilities. Progress to date: The project has made excellent progress both in preparing the facility for opening and in development of partnerships and programmes for the future. The new facility has had a dramatic impact on both the quantity and quality of PE provision at Fullhurst. There has also been a significant impact on the provision of extra-curricular activities in terms of range, quantity and quality. There has also been an impact on the primary schools that feed Fullhurst. Fullhurst have also been very successful at encouraging local clubs to become involved in the new facility and in ensuring that there is provision for Fullhurst pupils to access these clubs.

Lead Organisation: Southend on Sea Borough Council, St Christopher’s School Amount Awarded: £380,000 Project description: Southend on Sea Borough Council propose to build a new three-court sports hall at St Christopher’s School which will provide facilities for school PE, a centre for disabled sports and activities and a resource for wider participation in sport for mainstream youth and adult groups. 900 children will share the facilities including pupils from five local primary schools and special schools across the borough. Activities will include badminton, cricket, basketball, football, gymnastics and indoor archery. Progress to date: The facility has made a significant impact on both the quantity and quality of PE at the school and has resulted in a wider range of extra-curricular opportunities for the pupils of St Christopher’s and for pupils at other schools in the area. The school has also been very successful in attracting external users to the club.

Lead Organisation: Milton Keynes LEA, Leon School & Sports College (in Bletchley) Amount Awarded: £590,064 Project description: The project was for the development of a full sized, floodlit STP. Progress to date: The construction of the facility was completed in January 2004 and has thus been in use now for approximately 14 months. In relation to community use, take-up rate of the community use booking times is at 96%. 65 football clubs use the facility. The school works with the “Active Communities” programme and as part of this they provide “pay and play” opportunity where people can be involved in a three hour slot for football for just one pound . . . this has targeted young people who have historically been in trouble. The facility has targeted women and girls and they now run a successful six-a-side girls football teams, as well as forming direct links with Milton Keynes Wanderers women’s team. They have provided a good number of coach education courses and courses for coaching people with a disability. This has helped to provide confidence, leadership skills and qualifications for the future for pupils and members of the community. The Bangladeshi community are also using the sports facilities. Whilst this community are not really using the STP itself, the facility has raised awareness of the other facilities and they are now using the swimming pool & fitness gym at the site. 3049211008 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 116 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Annex B NOF. cover the CENI are arded to SCNI prog. This Money been Community Sport December 2005 Bearhunt to be completed by Hall Aitken The majority of lead of evaluation. Total 108.5 Sport England (millions of £) Strategy BIG/SE projects on schedule Being evaluated by OVERVIEW COMMUNITY SPORT INITIATIVE er a range of sporting and personal to be funded by V cer posts that o Y low levels of active participation 2004–March 2007 Areas of high social need and localities experiencing Use as revenue funding over 3 years—October development opportunities. participants; Will involve the est. ofO Community Sport Development additional 15 areas improve performance & develop sportinginfrastructure; turn informed “spectators” into NI (SCNI) in 2004 evaluation at present will not Aim of this programme is to increase participation, Sports Council £2.4 aw in 6) additional 18 (most disadvantaged) areas (currently in SCNIs existing Expand existing SCNI pilot programme to an evaluating 3 areas activities, outside curriculum times In particular those who arein typically sport under-represented and physical activity participation Children aged five to 16 as part of school sports and organisations £31 (SE) Wider adult community including use by sports clubs £77.5 (BIG) Capital small revenue component Increase participation in sport and physical activity Target group Target group Programme/Priorities Partners involved Funding Timetable Evaluation Northern Ireland Community Sport Programme England Active England 3049211008 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 117 (contd) 005 Annex B 2006 Committed by end September 2004 (millions of £) Strategy OVERVIEW COMMUNITY SPORT INITIATIVE youth football in Scotland Compliment £31M action plan thatnumber aims of to players increase and the raise the standard of all levels of Scottish Exec, Sportscotland, SFA review Implement recommendations emanating from the sportscotland, SFA of 2006 physical activity—target by age, gender,ethnicity social class and experience barriers to participating in sports and Target Socially and economically excluded groups who vol sector); £1–2M for medium(3 grants year of projects); £6K—£30K £600K for£30K–£100K large (Strategic grants NI of wide projectspartnership with approach). a (Small grants assessedAwards by for All in NI) Mostly revenue (£300K for small grants of £1K (comm/ of 2006 and health) Open grants programme activity coachesCreate new working partnerships (eg physical activity last one in June in 2 £2.1 meeting June 2005 Contract to be let targeting activities to priority groups Activities will address perceived barriersparticipation to Launched Create opportunities for people to train as physical First committee activity in order to contributeThis to will health be and done well by being extending existing provision or by Aim to expand grassroots involvement in physical Programme/PrioritiesActive Lifestyles Partners involved Funding Timetable Evaluation Scotland Youth Football Scottish Executive, £6 Committed by end 3049211008 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 118 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence (contd) o be let 5 Annex B s to run ding until December 2009 committed by (millions of £) Strategy OVERVIEW COMMUNITY SPORT INITIATIVE and economic deprivation Disadvantaged communities in terms of rurality, social BME, disabled, asylum seekers facing barriers to participation, eg young women, Hard to reach, inactive 17–24 year olds, especially those volunteers Prioritise projects that build capacity, ie train coaches, Final project £500k Two stage (competitive), direct grant scheme December 2006 needed)—£1.5M ring-fenced for national projects upto Eric Samuel All fun Over 3 years. (Some partnership funding/in kind CONTACT: January 2006 Capital). Min grant, £50,000; max grant, £500,000. Stage 2 deadline in 200 communityMostly revenue exemplar projects (small refurb £5.5 sportscotland April 2005 Contract t Stage 1 deadline olds Fund partnerships to open upactivities their to existing target facilities/ groups; introduceTG; new do sessions outreach for work, taking act out to TGs own Launched November 2004 Increase participation in sport andSustain physical participation activity among currently active 17–24 year Target group Programme/PrioritiesActive Futures Partners involved Funding Timetable Evaluation 3049211008 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 119 to (contd) vel rs in the ip to Annex B l funded in 2005 Contract to be let over 5 years This evaluation will be carried out of self-evaluation. Expect there to be y June eval and to l funding to be have expertise in (millions of £) Strategy OVERVIEW COMMUNITY SPORT INITIATIVE disabilities, SENs, young people atdisengagement, risk older of people, carers, peopleproblems, with those MH on low income participation locally eg BME groups, people with locally defined—those who experience barriers to Sedentary people from “hard to reach” population— ordinate 2nd stage applications 2010 schemes. fund these schemes directly. Partnership will co- Projects to run until al Wales. 2nd stage: build up detail of local schemes and 2006 provide support a strategic portfolio of 10–15 local schemes across Paul Dixon committed b 2 stage process. 1st stage: 1 partnership that can deliver CONTACT: £6.5 Al Schemes to be funded for 4 years (partnership prob. 6) March 2005 partnersh material costs (10% capital per local scheme) Stage 1 deadline national le Mostly revenue with scope to inc. some equipment/ November 2004 the partne Multi-intervention packages of activity Launched Will expect one of across Wales Delivered through a number of co-ordinated schemes a significant degree environment Increase activity levels through use of the local natural Target Programme/Priorities Partners involved Funding Timetable Evaluation Wales Mentro Allan 3049211008 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 120 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Annex C

Big Lottery Fund—Active England—Case Studies Lead Organisation: North Cornwall District Council Project Title: CREST—Coastal and Rural Extreme Sport Taskforce Amount Awarded: £122,200 Project description: A three year revenue project that will extend opportunities in “extreme sports” including wheeled sports, surfing, surf lifesaving and land based outdoor adventure particularly by young people. The post of Coastal Recreation OYcer will be created to co-ordinate a programme of activities encompassing introductory coaching, free sessions, local competition and pathways to performance. Working with schools and local provider the project aims to make a greater impact on healthy lifestyles by capitalising on the popularity of these non-traditional sports. Progress to date: The grant has been awarded.

Lead Organisation: Eureka The Museum for Children Project Title: Active Future Amount Awarded: £527,000 Project description: An interactive 100 sq metre exhibition, housed in a customised articulated truck, touring regional communities identified by measures of deprivation and under-representation in sport. Grant will pay for purchase and customisation of a semi-trailer; design and fit out of exhibit; maintenance and security; educational materials; professional fees; staV costs; marketing and website. Progress to date: The grant has been awarded and the planning phase is underway.

Annex D

Big Lottery Fund—Out of School Hours Learning/School Sport Co-ordinators—Case Studies Lead organisation: Rhonnda Cynon TaV Awarded amount: £207,688 Project description: Rhonnda Cynon TaV run a wide range of exciting and innovative physical activities at targeted schools throughout Rhonnda Cynon TaV. The activities are aimed at pupils with special educational needs and those receiving free school meals, those lacking motivation and transition pupils. They run weekend multi activity sessions in six local leisure centres for all schools in the vicinity of leisure centres. The project aims to increase self confidence and self esteem, increase fitness and improve knowledge of health related issues. One of the schools have been encouraging professional rugby players into the school to teach their younger pupils. Progress to date: The scheme is in its third year of operation. £64,454 has been claimed so far.

Lead Organisation: Penryn College—Cornwall LEA Amount Awarded: £132,930 Project description: A three year programme of 16 activities from September 2002, including 10 that were aimed at improving attendance. A key element of this project was using activities that pupils used to avoid school, (climbing, skateboarding and surfing) to actually involve them in school activities by creating additional provision out of school hours. Progress to date: The first two years’ monitoring gave qualitative information that they were well on their way to achieving a 25% decrease in truancy among the disaVected target group for skateboarding, had a 90% participation level in their surfing academy rising to 955 in year 2, a 30% increase in fencing club membership with a waiting list by the end of year 2, 70% attendance in aerobics for girls with low self esteem, 80% attendance for five activities including football for pupils with severe learning diYculties and 97% for climbing with no truanting for this last activity during the year. Actual participation levels stand at 95% of planned attendance of 2,052 over the first two years of the project. The project has just been oVered £63,000 expansion funding over the coming three years to make provision for an additional 3,825 pupils undertaking 10 activities in 45 additional schools. 3049211008 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 121

Big Lottery Fund—Out of School Hours Learning—Case Study Lead organisation: Manchester City Council. Amount awarded: £1,408,247 Project description: Manchester City Council runs the “Passport to Sports” scheme that aims to encourage life skills through sporting activities ranging from athletics to water polo. This project is designed to foster children’s enthusiasm for sport, motivate them and raise self-esteem. It is targeted at children living in disadvantaged areas by increasing use of school facilities along with LEA, local leisure and club facilities near schools. It also enhances the volunteers’ network by working with voluntary sports clubs and provides a link to the facilities that are a key element of the “legacy” of the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002. This Out of School Hours Term Time Scheme links to local Sport Co-ordinator Grants through a steering group that includes Wright Robinson Sports College School Sports Co-ordinator project. Progress to date: The scheme is in its third year of operation. £1,121,328 has been claimed so far. 1 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Business In Sport and Leisure Limited

Introduction Business In Sport and Leisure is delighted to submit evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Committee as the primary representative of private sector companies involved in the provision of community sport in the UK. We would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Select Committee.

Key Issues — Private sector investment in health and fitness centres is growing with nearly 2,000 clubs with membership of over 500 people. Local authorities need to take the lead to encourage greater partnerships with these providers and identify sites in the new Local Development Frameworks. There is a need for specific guidance from ODPM to achieve this. — Private sector companies operate 332 local authority sport and leisure centres in the UK, with investment up to £30 million a year, but the Government is providing an average subsidy of £290,000 per annum to a medium sized centre set up by a local authority as a Trust and in some cases preventing private sector companies from bidding for these contracts. — BISL welcomes the introduction of “Active Places Power” from Sport England, but deplores the fact that this tool to help plan community sports facilities will not be available to the private sector. — BISL believes that funding for National Governing Bodies of sport should come from the Exchequer and not from the vagaries of the National Lottery to ensure they have the resources to invest in the grass root development of their sport. — The recently published DCMS Five Year Plan makes no specific mention of potential role for the private sector sport and leisure sector despite being well aware that growth and investment in sports facilities must come from private sector resources.

Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) 1. Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is an umbrella organisation which represents over 100 private sector companies in the sport and leisure industry. Its members include most of the major owners and operators of private health and fitness centres and those leisure contractors that operate local authority owned sport and recreation facilities in the UK and many consultants who specialise in this field. BISL also has some of the major National Governing Bodies of sport as members including the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA), the Football Association (FA), the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) and the Rugby Football Union (RFU). Members of BISL who are listed on the London Stock Exchange have a combined market capitalisation in excess of £40 billion. 2. The benefits to the community of sustained participation in sport and active recreation are now almost universally acknowledged both across government and amongst the wider community. 3. Sport for young people should be and very often is by its very nature a highly enjoyable pastime, but also one that encourages and helps many sections of the community towards a healthy and rewarding lifestyle. Within school it undoubtedly encourages many of those who would otherwise be less engaged to attend and in many cases can contribute to improved academic as well as physical attainment. In the wider community, taking part in sport and active recreation can contribute to community safety as well as economic and environmental improvement. 3049211010 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 122 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Sport and Recreation and National and Regional Level 4. DCMS has clearly identified that Sport England will provide the strategic direction for community sport at a national and regional level, but Sport England would readily acknowledge that in its leaner form it cannot hope to ensure the delivery of wider opportunities for the community to take part in sport and recreation, without established partnerships across the public, private and voluntary sector. 5. The absence of any real mention of the existing and potential role for the private sector sport and leisure industry in the DCMS Five Year Plan is particularly disappointing. 6. The eVective delivery of community sport and recreation at a local level is directly or indirectly dependent upon the commitment, quality and resources available in the local authority; a factor reflected in the recent welcome proposal from the Audit Commission to include a culture indicator in the form of a measure of sports participation in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) in 2005. BISL has already indicated its support for this proposal and has welcomed the contribution made by Sport England to this work through the valued secondment of a senior local government oYcer and the work directly driven by Sport England to provide the tools to improve the performance of local government through Towards an Excellent Service (TAES). 7. At a regional level the launch by Sport England of “Active Places Power” is a further valuable contribution to assist local government to improve in planning for the provision of more accessible, viable and appropriate opportunities for community sport and recreation to take place. BISL welcomes this initiative, but is very disappointed that access to such a useful planning tool is present denied to the commercial leisure sector. 8. It is understood that the stumbling block relates to charging the private sector to use the system as the Ordnance Survey require a percentage of the charge as the map data is provided free under the Pan Government Agreement. The proposed solution from OS is apparently too complicated and costly to implement and this may need Ministerial intervention to resolve the matter.

The Delivery Question 9. The need for both the inclusion of a sport’s participation indicator in the CPA and the work of TAES is a reflection of the problems in community sport that result from the very diVerent levels of commitment, expertise and resources allocated to sport and recreation by local authorities in England. The evidence, albeit anecdotal, because there still remains a serious dearth of empirical evidence; (a matter for which those charged with strategic guidance and monitoring need to respond more urgently), is that in those well performing authorities with commitment and political will, the expertise and the resources to take part in sport and recreation are providing for the local community. There is a clear understanding of the social and economic benefits of sport and recreation. 10. Elsewhere the gap is widening, as facilities close or are in such need of refurbishment that they no longer are eYcient or attractive to the customer. This is often also in places where sport development initiatives are short lived when the external funding, often provided by the Lottery that was the catalyst is removed. These are often those local authorities where the leisure/sport and recreation portfolio is diYcult to identify and define both in cabinet and within the oYcer structure. 11. The DCMS and Sport England have recognised the important role that local government will play in the delivery of community sport, and have also recognised the role of the voluntary sector in delivering to the community. The voluntary sector, whether in the form of the National Governing Bodies and their formal structure of sports clubs, or in the many voluntary organisations that include the delivery of sport amongst other services to their membership, remain for many people at the heart of their sporting experience. The opportunity to plan over a longer period (four years) for NGBs is a huge step in the right direction, but there still needs to be a more stable financial regime based on a funding stream from the Exchequer rather than the Lottery. 12. The level of change in community sports participation envisaged in “Game Plan” is enormous and however rigorous the strategic planning, is unlikely to be delivered by the public sector alone. 13. There has undoubtedly already been significant investment in school sport infrastructure and more continues to come on line through “Building Schools for the Future”. A much greater co-ordination of leisure and education building programmes is required to ensure community access and that voluntary community sports clubs have access to this emerging public resource.

Private Sector Health,Fitness and Tennis Clubs 14. Private Sector Funding for Community Sport is invested through two distinct sectors. There are almost 2,000 private health clubs with membership in excess of 500 in the UK. Average attendance is between on and one and a half times a week. Nearly 45% of members pay less than £50 a month. 15. In some towns and cities there can be four or five private sector health and fitness clubs (with swimming pools) within a catchment and yet often there is no eVort expended by the local authority to engage with operators of very similar facilities to those they own. 3049211010 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 123

16. It is often claimed that private sector facilities are not aVordable to those on low incomes, but there are examples of private facilities being built adjacent to schools, with school use or next to “pay and play” facilities in partnerships with local authorities that could be extended elsewhere. If the cost of buying a month’s subscription to sky television is £50 this is directly comparable with the 45% of members of health and fitness clubs paying less than £45 a month. Since most local authority leisure centres now also oVer membership schemes, the diVerence in cost between public and private facilities is becoming more and more blurred.

17. Very few local authorities provide sites for private sector health, fitness and tennis centres in their Local Development Frameworks. This prevents the private sector from maximising its investment as often their proposals are treated as “departures from the local plan” and subsequently called in by ODPM. It is essential local authorities are they are encouraged to identify sites through practical planning guidance. Why is it that facilities for health and fitness have to respond to a “needs test”? Surely all sports facilities are needed if they are well used.

Private Sector Operators of Local Authority Owned Sport and Leisure Centres

18. The second sector covers companies who contribute to community leisure through the management of over 300 local authority owned leisure centres with a direct capital investment of over £30 million in 2002–03.

19. Independent research undertaken by SheYeld University, using Sport England’s benchmarking service, shows that private sector operators perform better on key performance indicators for financial performance and equally well on key performance indicators for social inclusion, compared to in-house operators or trusts.

20. The contribution by the commercial sector is being delivered however, on a very uneven playing field that delivers a subsidy from national government to locally operated trusts through UBR, VAT and Corporation Tax that for a medium sized centre is estimated to be of the order of £290,000 per anum. The growth in the number of local authority established trusts for sport and leisure facilities which now total in excess of 150 trusts represents a significant cost to Central Government.

21. The financial imbalance is undoubtedly a constraint to the development of the commercial leisure management sector, but the playing field is further unbalanced where an authority, driven by the fiscal incentive to establishes a trust, decides that the contract will not be oVered for external tender.

22. There are several implications for the development of community sport. A consolidation within the commercial operator sector and even a potential contraction with the potential reduction and loss of commercial capital investment and savings at a time when the scale of investment to sustain and regenerate the facility base is enormous.

23. Those authorities willing and able to deliver directly will continue to do so, those actively seeking partners for delivery and management in the private sector will continue to seek them and deliver ,but many authorities will do neither and consequently the gap between the delivery of community sport in diVerent parts of the country will widen not shrink.

Conclusion

24. In conclusion BISL welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this Inquiry and would be pleased to provide further oral evidence if requested. BISL believes that the role now clearly identified by DCMS for Sport England as the strategic leader for the delivery of community sport in England is entirely appropriate, but would urge Government to recognise that by its own admission neither DCMS nor Sport England can deliver the community sport requirement of Game Plan without partnerships in the public private and voluntary sector.

25. DCMS and wider Government along with Sport England has acknowledged the essential roles of both the local authority and again recently the voluntary sector, but neither have adequately come to terms with the enormous contribution that the commercial sector already makes on an uneven playing field, nor the greater contribution it could make to a step change in community sport on a level playing field. 4 April 2005 3049211011 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 124 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Corporation of London

Sport Development in the City of London

1. The sporting programme in the City is enhanced by working in partnership with other organisations, and the various facility providers in and around the City. Through the Department of Community Services, the Corporation of London aims to increase opportunities for participation, promote positive attitudes towards physical activity and provide opportunities enabling all participants at diVerent levels to achieve their full potential. 2. The Corporation’s sports development section co-ordinates a wide variety of sporting activities and events throughout the year for all ages as well as managing the Golden Lane Leisure Centre. The aim of the team is to develop and promote sport and leisure opportunities for both residents and the City’s workforce at a variety of levels, increase community development and remove any perceived barriers to participation. The Corporation seeks to take a proactive approach to increasing the provision of sports activity within the City area and encouraging sport for all. Much of this is done through the Golden Lane Leisure Centre. 3. Support and the organisation of established competitions and events in the City is a priority. The team organise a number of events throughout the year, some examples include the 23 mile water station for the Flora London Marathon, a health and fitness open day for the local health clubs to promote themselves to City workers, and the “City Dip”, an annual swimming event in aid of the Lord Mayor’s charity. The Corporation is also instrumental in co-ordinating the City squad for the London Youth Games (comprising 215 youngsters) and squads for the mini marathon. More routine activities include learn to swim programmes for children and youths aged between 18 months and 15 years, and for beginners to club swimmers. The programmes are all delivered at the Golden Lane Leisure Centre. 4. The Corporation also produces a Sports Directory for City residents and workers. This is a comprehensive guide to sporting activities in the City of London area and is provided free of charge. The directory includes details about facilities, clubs, programmes, sessions and courses. A few facilities are also listed from outside the immediate City area which are included because there may not be provision within the City of London area or they are already extensively used by individuals or teams within the City.

Specific Initiatives

5. The Corporation is involved in the Millwall Community Scheme which provides professional, qualified coaches who organise football activities on a number of the estates owned by the Corporation to encourage young people to come along and focus their energy into playing football. The programme specifically targets hard to reach and vulnerable youngsters (mainly 6–14 year olds) who want to but have little opportunity to engage in a positive and proactive activity. The programme co-ordinated an inter estate tournament which saw 90 young people from the estates involved brought together to compete against each other in a friendly but competitive way. As the scheme continues to progress, it is hoped education courses will be introduced as well as health and drug education courses in the local schools using football as the incentive to encourage young people to participate and learn. 6. The Corporation also operates a School Holiday programme run at the Golden Lane Leisure Centre during every break in term (with the exclusion of Christmas). The Sports Camp programme provides children aged between 8–14 years with the opportunity to partake in various activities under the direction of a qualified sports coach. Included in the scheme the children are taken on a mystery day trip normally of a sporting nature, past trips have included visits to indoor rock climbing centres, ice skating, Arsenal Football Stadium and the Riverside Athletics Track. The aim is to try and ensure that the programme is as varied as possible utilising many diVerent sports in order to maintain the participant’s interest and health. 7. Following the higher profile rugby has received following the World Cup success in 2003, the Sports Development Team is working in partnership with the Rugby Football Union to oVer children aged between 8–14 years the opportunity to try rugby union for free on three of the Corporation owned housing estates. The sessions are open to all residents and, following its success last year, is due to restart this spring. 8. In addition to those initiatives listed above, there is a wide range of other activities organised at the Golden Lane Leisure Centre including a tennis programme for adults and children of all abilities, and a programme of exercise for ladies only on one of the estates which has a high Bengali community as well as a girls only programme. This scheme has been useful in providing an opportunity for integration between Bengali and European women. A further programme is currently being developed for under 11’s aimed at tackling obesity and it is hoped this scheme will engage 250 children and 150 families. 3049211011 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 125

Financial Assistance 9. The Sports Development Team is keen to assist groups and organisations that want to improve or increase the sporting opportunities on oVer to the Community. To assist with this, a Sports Grant Scheme has been developed aimed at providing financial assistance in setting up a sports club or in order to provide additional kit or equipment. A separate initiative aims to provide financial help to those representing the City in a sporting capacity at County, Regional, National or International level to assist with associated costs such as travel, entry fees, accommodation and additional equipment. April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Dr Adam Brown I read with interest, although somewhat belatedly, about the new enquiry being conducted by the DCMS Select Committee into “Community Sport”. We have spoken with the Minister of Sport and some of your oYcials in the past, but I also wanted to make your committee aware directly of important work in this area which we are involved in. I am Research Fellow at MIPC, Manchester Metropolitan University. Together with our partners at SheYeld Hallam University, led by Dr Tim Crabbe, we have undertaken a huge amount of research around notions of “community” and sport; and are currently engaged in the most extensive research being conducted anywhere into the use of sport in social interventions. We have previously spoken to two Ministers of Sport about this work, including Mr Cabourn, and I met with both Mark Blacar and Dean Creamer at DCMS toward the end of last year in discussions about our research. I was also a member of the government’s Football Task Force which considered some aspects of football’s relationship to “community”, so we have had an ongoing engagement with national culture and sport policy for some years. I will attach a list of some of our research below. However, rather than go into further detail here, should the Committee wish to see any of our research outputs, or talk to us about the research and key areas of policy, we would be happy to contribute our knowledge to your deliberations.

Current and Past Sport Research at MIPC, MMU and Sport Division, SHU

1. Current Research (a) Football and Its Communities (Football Foundation). MMU and SHU Funded by the Football Foundation and running from October 2002 to October 2005, this project is led at MMU by Dr Adam Brown but undertaken jointly with SheYeld Hallam University (Dr Tim Crabbe). The research Steering Group comprises the Foundation, Football Association, FA Premier League, Football League and Home OYce. Now in its final year, the research is a detailed investigation into, and re-evaluation of, the whole concept of football’s relations with, role and impact upon its various “communities”. (b) Positive Futures (UK Home OYce) National Case Study Research. SHU and MMU Commissioned by the UK Home OYce, the Positive Futures Case Study Research Project is being led by the Sport Division of SheYeld Hallam University in collaboration with MIPC at Manchester Metropolitan University and Goldsmiths College, London. This is a major national programme of research which explores the use of sport in social inclusion programmes, specifically the Positive Futures programme run through the Home OYce. Utilising innovative, participant, action research techniques this project will inform future policy through a qualitative study of seven selected Positive Futures case studies. (c) Angling and Social Inclusion: A Consultancy on Get Hooked On Fishing Project. MMU Funded by the Countryside Agency and Home OYce, this is a new consultancy in a new area of sport research, led by Dr Adam Brown. It seeks to research the development of a social intervention charity in angling. It runs from 2005–06.

Previous Research (a) UK Sport: The Sports Development Impact of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games: “Initial Baseline Research”, 2001; and “Post-Games Review”, 2004. MMU Funded by UK Sport and led by Dr Adam Brown, this research follows on from the Initial Baseline Research conducted in 2001 (below). These two pieces of research together explored the impact in terms of sport development of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Both pieces combined a quantitative survey of local sports clubs, national governing bodies and local authorities; as well as qualitative interviews with key individuals and organisations. 3049211012 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 126 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

(b) Report Into the Estate Based Scoial Inclusion Programme of Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme, 2003–04. LOCSP/Football Foundation. SHU Led and undertaken by Dr Tim Crabbe at SHU, this research was a qualitative assessment of one of the country’s most talked about sport and social inclusion programmes, looking in detail at how the scheme has succeeded inn, and what the problems are with, engaging young people through sport. (c) “Sport, the City and Governance: Football Its Fans and Social Exclusion”. Economic and Social Research Council: (R000223291). 2001–02. MMU Funded by the ESRC and led by the late Dr Derek Wynne, and subsequently by Dr Adam Brown, from 2001–02. Focusing on a case study of Manchester, the project considered: the relationship of sport, and football in particular, to local authority strategies for urban renewal; the place of professional football in relation to the changing uses of sport in the city; issues of participation and social cohesion in relation to sport within a specific local context, with a particular focus on football fans. (d) The Cultures of Racism in Football, Economic and Social Research Council. Goldsmiths An investigation by Tim Crabbe, Les Back and John Solomos into racism in English football through a case studies of four football clubs. The findings wee published as the acclaimed book “The Changing Face of Football”. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by the European Sponsorship Association

Introduction The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has agreed to inquire into community sport and the support provided to it, both strategically and financially, by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the United Kingdom Sports Council (UK Sport), Sport England and local authorities. The Committee wishes to focus its inquiry on the development of grassroots sport and has invited views to be submitted on current levels of participation by all members of the community. It intends to review existing initiatives and expenditure. Submissions have been invited from interested organisations.

The European Sponsorship Association The European Sponsorship Association (ESA) is the voice of the sponsorship industry across Europe. It was formed in 2003 from the Institute of Sports Sponsorship (ISS) and the European Sponsorship Consultants Association (ESCA). ESA’s membership comprises leading sponsors, consultants, governing bodies and rights holders, suppliers and professional bodies working within the sponsorship industry. ESA provides information and expertise on all types of sponsorship activity including sport, broadcast, the arts, music, environmental and charity. ESA is responsible for Sportsmatch, the Sport England funded initiative which matches grants to business sponsorship of grass roots sports.

Key role of sponsorship of community sport in ESA mission The Institute of Sports Sponsorship (ISS), a predecessor body of ESA, was founded in 1988 with one of its aims being to contribute to UK sport through encouraging businesses to provide additional funds and resources through sponsorship. This aim was a key part of the ISS mission and the ISS saw the well-being of the community as an important goal for business sponsorship of sport. From this recognition, ISS initiated in 1992, Sportsmatch which has grown into one of the most successful of matching schemes by which business contributes to the community. Sportsmatch has made a separate submission to the Committee. This recognition of the importance of sport to the well-being of the community has been carried through to the work of ESA as the successor body to ISS. It is further heightened by ESA which now represents not just sponsors but all those with an interest in sports sponsorship including sport governing bodies and rights holders.

Responsible sponsorship ESA, as the representative body for those engaged in sponsorship, requires that its members adopt a responsible approach to sports marketing, particularly on issues relating to health and marketing to young people. Of particular focus for ESA in responsible marketing are topics such as health, fitness, obesity and alcohol. ESA has recently worked with the International Chamber of Commerce to produce a revised 3049211013 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 127

International Code of Sponsorship which includes guidelines for sponsorships promoting to the community, schools, youth and other audiences. ESA has also collaborated with the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Consumers Association on a Guide to Commercial Activities in Schools.

Role of Community Sport in Sponsorship Community sport is largely funded by national and local government but the role of funding from the private sector is growing. The Sportsmatch statistics support this with evidence that of the nearly 5,000 companies funded by Sportsmatch, the funded projects represent around two-thirds of the companies’ sports activities.

Benefits of Sponsorship for Community Sports Sport sponsorship is becoming increasingly important as a marketing tool. Major companies and brands are using sponsorship much more as a front-line marketing option. The proliferation of the media, the development of new technology and changes in particular to TV viewing habits are making it increasingly hard for the advertising industry to reach mass audiences. This, coupled with a shift towards experiential-led marketing is all having a major impact on the sponsorship industry, not only at the top level but spreading throughout sport to all levels and particularly at grass roots and development level. These are areas where major companies are identifying increased opportunities. As such, interest and opportunities for community sports sponsorship is becoming significant and the benefits can include those listed below: — Additional funds: these can be provided by the sponsors through the core sponsorship fee but may also be leveraged funds from other bodies such as trusts or the lottery. — Promotion and recognition: raising the profile of the rights holder and the sport including promotional budgets which expand and enhance the core sponsorship activity. — Access to skills: sponsors can bring skills across a wide range such as marketing, project and event management, promotion, communications and new technology. — Employee involvement: access to skills and resources of employees including activities such as mentoring, team challenges, fund-raising. — In-kind support: access to a range of in-kind resources such as sponsors’ products and services, use of meeting rooms and facilities, information technology, design, marketing and promotion, training—often the in-kind services provided are those in short supply at the grass roots level. — Innovation: sponsorship can bring creativity and unattached funds to enable the sport to undertake new activities. — Event creation: sponsors often create new innovative and attractive community sports ventures and events which are sponsor-led but are a valuable addition to the opportunities for the community and sport.

Benefits for Sponsors from Sponsoring Community Sports

Enhancing high-profile sponsorships

Major sponsors have recognised that high profile sponsorships can be significantly enhanced by building- in community sports programmes. Here are just four high profile examples: — Ariel is a brand sponsorship with major sponsorship of Tim Henman associated with grass-roots workshops and training courses. — B&Q has invested heavily in the British Olympic programme which involves a few high profile Olympians but mainly focuses on giving young Olympic hopefuls the opportunity to work for the company but at the same time receive invaluable help and support with training and preparation for their sport. — Coca-Cola in addition to its sponsorship of professional soccer also sponsors schools soccer through community knock-out competitions and training. — Norwich Union began its sponsorship of UK Athletics in 1999 and in 2001 it announced it was to continue until the end of 2006, with a further £20 million to go to the sport of which 20% would be invested in four grassroots and development programmes— Norwich Union star:track, sports:hall, the Norwich Union agility:challenge and the Norwich Union shine:awards. 3049211013 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 128 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Fulfilling corporate responsibility

Companies are increasingly valuing the role of sport in corporate responsibility programmes, seeing sport as not only of educational benefit but a key way to improving the well-being of communities, and also helping produce a new generation of potential employees that will be healthy, have good personal skills and be motivated. Community sport sponsorships can provide a platform for opportunities for employee involvement through ways such as administration of clubs and events, fundraising, mentoring, team challenges. Community sport also address social issues of concern to business such as obesity, diabetes, crime, diversity and social exclusion. Community regeneration is another area where business can be a partner in fostering community sport. This can include providing funds through sponsorship but also supported by in-kind support such as business skills.

Here are some examples of leading community sponsorships: — Barclays through the Barclays Spaces for Sports, a new £30 million investment, is contributing to community sports facilities across the UK. The sponsorship is being carried out in partnership with the Football Foundation and Groundwork and aims to create over 300 new spaces for sports over the next three years. — BSkyB is partnering the Youth Sport Trust in Living For Sport, a sports initiative which is tackling disaVection through sport. Recognising that sport can create a spirit of adventure and creativity, the project aims to inspire 11 to 16 year olds while also helping schools meet their behaviour improvement targets through a structured programme of activities. — Kia, the car manufacturer, is sponsoring the Lawn Tennis Association with £500,000 over three years for grass roots tennis competitions—The KIA National Club League will feature around 800 club teams, represented by up to 7,500 men and women playing more than 11,000 matches each year. — McDonalds have been forced to introduce new healthier options to their menus. However, their core products are perceived as unhealthy. They have therefore invested significant levels of funding in grass roots soccer, which is now providing thousands of extra coaches to enable more youngsters to participate in the sport. — Provident Financial through its PACK project (Provident Action for Creative Kids) is supporting the Youth Hostel Association of England & Wales to provide activity breaks for schoolchildren from inner city communities. — Spar through the SPAR Sprints Initiative, a three year sponsorship, is supporting UK Athletics to introduce a co-ordinated structure to the development of sprinting and sprint hurdling. The scheme aims to get more children sprinting both in schools and in clubs.

A platform for marketing

Cause related marketing can provide valuable income and promotion for community sport. Examples are EDF Energy providing sports equipment for schools in association with the London Evening Standard and the Sainsbury’s Active Kids vouchers scheme.

Recommendations

Government should: — Foster an environment which will encourage sponsors to support community sport by means such as tax incentives, leveraged funding and government endorsement and recognition. — Expand the funding for matching grants for sponsorship through Sportsmatch. — Recognise formally the role and significance of business sponsorship in community sport by inviting ESA to participate as a member of review and other bodies, shaping the future of community sport on issues such as sports development, governance, regeneration, new technology, volunteering (as being considered s part of the Carter Review). — Encourage and involve businesses as early as possible in originating and developing community sport initiatives at local, regional and national levels so that business expertise, creativity and sponsorship resources can be best utilised to enhance the initiatives. 3049211013 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 129

— Develop a campaign aimed at highlighting the opportunities for major companies/brands and showing just how impactful sponsorship programmes can be in getting more youngsters involved in sport and the impact this would have in the areas of health, society and education. 31 March 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Football Foundation

The Football Foundation is the UK’s largest sports charity with an annual income of £45 million, provided on a matching contribution basis, by the FA Premier League (£15 million), the FA (£15 million), Sport England and the Government (£15 million).

The Foundation is playing a key role in revitalizing grass roots sport, investing in our parks, schools and playing fields and harnessing the power of the game within our communities, to promote education and social inclusion. Our mission is to improve facilities, create opportunities and build communities.

Since we were established in July 2000 we have championed community sport: — Supporting projects worth £290 million—including funding 569 facility projects, 624 national/ local community and education initiatives, 200 changing facilities and over 70 artificial turf pitches. An additional £101 million worth of projects are in the pipeline. — Securing £141 million of additional inward investment in football—including securing £30 million funding from Barclays Bank for a grass roots investment programme. — Encouraging participation in community football—including giving over 100,000 children new football strips and developing www.reV.org.uk, a unique database which enables anyone who wishes to play football to find facilities in their local area. — Delivering value for money—securing a £5 return on every £1 invested by each funding partner.

The Football Foundation welcomes the Committee’s decision to scrutinise the development of community sport and would be happy to provide members with further briefing if this would be helpful. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management

Introduction

The Institute is delighted to respond to the invitation to make a submission to the Committee. ISRM was formed in 1921 on the initiative of HMG, which was concerned to improve the nation’s health (many major concerns do not change!), and felt that the public baths, indoor sports halls and swimming pools needed proper management. Today in a very diVerent landscape, the Institute is concerned to train, educate and sustain standards of professional management of a much wider range of environments, facilities and programmes for sport and physical recreation.

Community recreation is essentially a local phenomenon; a generation ago forecasts of a shorter working week and year led to projections of a major boom in sport and leisure, with a large health component. In recent decades there has in practice been a growth in the sport and leisure sector as outlined below: — steady growth in leisure participation, but some of it IT/TV-based and passive; — working hours have shortened little, and pressures to pay for a gadget-filled life and adequate pensions are putting a brake on early retirement; — after a growth in sports participation in the1980s, the curve has flattened and even dipped a little (ONS, 2004); young people indulge in adventure sports; committed participants have become more intensive and discriminating, but the inequality evident in society is reflected in sport with low participation by excluded groups (poor people, older people, disabled people, some ethnic minorities—Collins, 2003). That low participation is most concentrated in a Gordian knot in communities with poverty, poor housing, health and diet, and high crime; and 3049211015 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 130 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— concerns with obesity, CHD and other ill health consequences, and proof of the benefits of activity have lead to a new cross-departmental initiative Choosing Activity (DoH/DCMS, 2005), matched in other parts of the UK. These phenomena are common to the majority of developed countries, but even allowing for DCMS, DFES, Lottery-funded and Home OYce programmes, Britain spends less than most of them on sport and physical activity. There is widespread belief among politicians and professionals that there are other benefits to the cross- cutting issues from sport, (such as reduced criminal behaviour among young people, economic regeneration, reduction in social exclusion, life-long learning, opportunities for engagement in community life through voluntary work, development of the community and the development of individuals [ref: Sport England, June 1999]) However, compared to the health issue of improved health for the individual and less demands on the health service by those of middle and older age, evidence is new, fragmentary and less conclusive. Nevertheless, it is the view of the ISRM that the scale of that physical and mental benefit alone should justify a major expansion in community sport.

ISRM’s Case This is based on three simple propositions.

Proposition 1 The scale and nature of the benefit to communities in feeling and functioning better at all ages is a communal and national one and should be exchequer funded through local authorities, which are the only agencies with the locus and range of competencies to tackle the job. The voluntary and commercial sectors can help, but both select their programmes and target groups; whilst the NHS is still overwhelmed with being a sickness service and its reach cannot extend to neighbourhood promotion of such programmes.

Proposition 2 Local authorities have a better understanding of what is needed now—40 years of direct provision to sports consumers has taught them something of marketing that now needs to be applied (like condom use and anti-smoking) in a social framework. Local Authorities are also now used to working in cross-sector Local Strategic Partnerships and cross-boundary County Sport Partnerships, against a system of Comprehensive Performance Assessment performance indicators and quality assured standards.

Proposition 3 But LAs lack the policy priority, capital and revenue to take a lead anywhere near the scale demanded by HMG’s target for 2020 (in Game Plan, DCMS, 2002) of increasing moderate exercise at the level required to give the benefit (five times a week for 30 minutes each time—CMO, 2004) from 30% to 70% of the population.

3.1 Give community sport the policy priority No government policy paper since 1990 has given local authorities the credit or role needed to take the lead; many countries have a specific ministry and law for sport with a mandatory role for municipalities to provide. The Treasury will argue against implementing such a system on spending grounds, as will some civil servants on the grounds that local variations in tradition, terrain and citizen choice make setting standards diYcult, but these are technical matters, not ones of principle. ISRM believes that giving community sport the policy priority should be a duty for England and Wales.

3.2 Give community sport the local capital Despite increasing contributions by the club system (mainly via the Lottery and a few richer Governing Bodies), as well as from commercial operators (mainly in the rackets, fitness and adventure sports businesses), and “wheezes” like getting contractor, trust and PFI schemes to pay for renovation or replacement in a minority of cases, it is clear that more sports buildings will become obsolescent than can be built. Sport England’s (2003) review suggests that just for sports halls to stand, £500 million a year for five years was needed in England alone. Only half of that is forthcoming from all sources for all sports facilities. Yet when ISRM made a similar case for swimming pools to your Committee (2001), the DCMS (2002B) replied that existing exchequer and lottery sources were available. 3049211015 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 131

3.3 Give community sport the local workforce Sport has become a major subject of study at A and HND levels, foundation, bachelors (13,700 students in 3,139 degrees in UK HE Institutions—Collins, 2003B) and masters degrees; these courses often do not yet knit sports science and management adequately with community health, and currently many of these graduates cannot find rewarding jobs in the industry. However, it is possible to remedy this, and Skillsactive’s (the sector skills council) development plan must surely see a major expansion of the workforce to meet an increase in participation of 233%, at an annual rate four times greater than so far experienced. This extra money and staV are needed locally, especially because such an increase needs to penetrate the hard-to-reach groups and communities mentioned above, where all of 40 years’ experience shows that an awareness campaign and facility/programme provision must be backed up by neighbourhood promotion of a skilled and credible workforce. HMG’s programmes via schools are admirable and are succeeding in turning round an equally failing situation. But what happens after school? Furthermore, the benefits of the government’s targets and the huge savings in health and care bills must be reaped among adults, and especially among those over 40 where the savings from healthy independence increase with age. Local authorities are surely the appropriate and accountable agents.

Conclusions Much more could be said. But the historic and current levels of investment in buildings and people have not turned round participation rates because they are not commensurate to the task or certainly not that which HMG has set the nation. This task amounts to a social revolution that has taken the Finns two generations to achieve and on which the Canadians and Australians have embarked just a few years before Britain, but all with higher policy priority and proportionately greater resources. Sport and recreation services are universally popular and well-rated by citizens even when they can benefit from eYciency savings such as those suggested in the Gershon review. However, even if they are “fit for purpose” (to use a favourite phrase of the Minister for Sport), they need a major upgrading to face the considerable social challenge the nation cannot aVord not to meet.

About ISRM The Institute of Sport and Recreation Management is the national professional body for sport and recreation management in the UK. Founded in 1921, the institute has a membership of 2,500 qualified sport and recreation specialists employed at all levels in the industry from front line managers to heads of companies, organisations and local authority departments. Its key objective is to provide opportunities for participation in sport and other recreational activities to benefit public health. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme Operating from oYces at Leyton Orient Football Club, the programme was initiated in May 1989 as a three-way partnership between the London Borough of Waltham Forest, Sport England and the football club. Due to the rapid growth of the programme it became a registered charity and company limited by guarantee in 1997. Over the last eight years the organisation has grown to three times the size both in terms of the number of staV employed and annual turnover. The overall aim is to engage with and access young people living across Northeast London who are traditionally excluded from mainstream sports, leisure and educational opportunities. We are currently running a range of innovative and creative sports and educational projects in Waltham Forest, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham in partnership with a broad range of agencies and funders from local authorities, regeneration agencies, youth oVending teams, and schools to Connexions, London’s’ Trusts and the Home OYce. Over the past 15 years we have established a comprehensive education and sports programme across Northeast London. We have specialised in providing grassroots sports programmes linked to education and training and have established a strong network of partners and support. Sports development principles underpin all of our sports work and we have now established strong sporting opportunities from grassroots to excellence in football and netball and are establishing opportunities in Basketball and Tennis.

Community Based Development We have been delivering and developing estates and area based diversionary programmes across North and east London since 1997. We currently run programmes in Barking, Leyton, Woodberry Down, Stoke Newington Poplar, Shadwell, Isle of Dogs, Stratford and Walthamstow oVering a range of sporting and educational activities. We tend to work in cluster areas where we oVer a comprehensive oVer of school, after school and community based sessions. This combines delivering education and sport programmes 3049211016 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 132 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

which lead to the creation of competitive playing opportunities. Through this work we also look to create the next generation of coaches by recruiting from the local areas and integrating them into our delivery programme. We have also established strong local networks and partnerships ranging from professional service providers such as schools, YOTS, DATS, youth crime diversion agencies and youth workers through to neighbourhood management forums, Housing Associations and the community and voluntary sector. In practical terms we are currently delivering a minimum of 10 activity sessions per week working with at least 20 young people per session.

Below are some examples of our area working:

Barking—We began working in the borough in September 2000 delivering a Home OYce diversion programme in partnership with the Borough’s diversion and youth agencies. The target area was initially the Gascoigne estate in Barking focusing on 10–19 year olds at risk of oVending and drug related behaviour. Four years into the programme of work a strong programme oVer and network of support has been put together including the establishment of several football teams linked to educational, training and employment opportunities. As part of this the main team have gained some attention from the local and national press and were made “citizens of the year” by the Barking and Dagenham Post.

Woodberry Down—We began this Positive Futures project in September 2000 on the Woodberry Down estate focusing on delivering a comprehensive community and education programme. This project has concentrated on delivering mixed ability and gender netball and football sessions in the schools, setting up after school and running termly inter schools football and netball tournaments which have proved to be successful in terms of the numbers attending. In addition we have also delivered our classroom based “Learning Through Football” initiative to the Primary schools in the area focusing on healthy lifestyles and supporting the pupils literacy and numeracy skills. The broad schools programme has enabled us to create an estates programme as an exit route for the same young people. We have focused on developing opportunities for girls specifically by starting up basketball sessions that will lead to the formation of a club. We have also formed a couple of estates based football teams who as well as playing in our own inter estates leagues have progressed to playing in an aYliated Essex League.

Isle of Dogs—As part of the Isle of Dogs Community Foundation’s “Confident Communities” Programme, we have been delivering a comprehensive programme since September 2000 involving all of the schools and many of the community groups based in the area as well as focusing on young people form the housing estates. Throughout this period, many young people on the Island have received netball coaching during curriculum time and after-school and have had the opportunity to compete in a number of primary school tournaments at George Green’s School. The response from those taking part has been phenomenal and the interest in netball has rapidly spread across the Island to areas that haven’t seen the game played for a generation. To channel this enthusiasm and to further develop the potential a dedicated Netball Club for the Island has been set up. The Club now have a women’s adult section for parents and teachers and a junior section for boys and girls who have taken a shine to the sport. As well as training, there are now three women’s teams playing regularly in local leagues.

Diversion Programme & Eastside FC—The programme provides a range of activity-based education, training and employment opportunities for (ex) oVenders, young people “at risk” of oVending and those recovering from substance abuse—who face barriers to accessing mainstream training provision. Our staV supports participants closely, particularly during their initial days on the projects. This allows clients to settle into the activities whilst building a trusting, supportive relationship with staV. This relationship is key when encouraging participants, once settled, to gain qualifications—most notably our own custom- made Open College Network (OCN) courses that develop basic skills via the activities undertaken whilst on the project. Participants are given support around training and employment opportunities as part of the programme. In practice we run sessions focusing on young adults (17!) who have been referred by local agencies. The project has grown from a weekly three a-side kick about, to a programme that runs Eastside FC who play in the Essex Mid Week Business League and the Essex Business House League.

Stratford—We currently run a sports and education package funded through Positive Futures in the Stratford area This consists of coaching and matches at least two evenings per week based at Stratford Park and at the Docklands Centre on the Carpenters estate oVering playing opportunities for up to 30 young people per session. This work has led to the formation of informal teams for inter area, inter estate and inter borough competition and tournaments. The programme is enhanced by oVering structured playing opportunities through the teams and moving up the age group. We also oVer daytime activity to engage with up to 20 17–19 year olds including oVering football training and fitness sessions. We also run an education and sports programme in the Stratford area where we are currently working 3049211016 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 133

with the local secondary schools including Rokeby, Sarah Bonnell and Stratford, through curriculum time and after school schemes of work. Each school is receiving at least two hours of our programme per week in girls football, athletics and netball. We have also delivered an Open College Network football coaching course in Rokeby to 15 Year 10 boys. We will look to continue this type of work over the coming year.

Sports Based Development

Underpinning all of our community development and education work is the commitment to providing good quality sports development programmes and progression routes. Over the past 15 years we have strengthened this area of work and now have a strong team of oYcers and coaches who have the expertise and knowledge to develop sporting opportunities in Tennis, Netball and Basketball. However Football remains our core sporting activity and we currently provide a number of progression routes stemming from our schools, after school and holiday programmes. This includes providing regular inter school and inter area football tournaments, girls only secondary school leagues in Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest and at least 20 teams from the age of seven through to adult, many of whom are from our estates and area based programmes, player development centres and the Centre of Excellence for both boys and girls. We also provide coaching for school district teams and work with Tower Hamlets College in delivering a football academy. We have over 20 Level Two and 7 Level Three coaches with three of our staV qualified to deliver FA Level One courses as well as four staV who can deliver CSLA courses and five staV that can deliver Open College Network courses.

Grassroots Programme

In addition to our area and estates based football programme we currently run a comprehensive football development programme for 5–19 year olds across Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Epping Forest. This includes oVering introductory skills coaching to 5–7 year olds and Coerver coaching to 8–10 year olds. This is delivered in schools and at community venues during curriculum time, after school clubs and through holiday programmes. Through this programme we work with over 25,000 young people a year.

Player Development

From the grassroots community sessions we have developed a sophisticated progression routes with players who show some ability. We currently run five player development centres for 7–14 year olds working with at least 400 young people on a weekly basis. To create regular playing opportunities we have also established LOASS FC who run nine age group teams playing in local leagues. This is in addition to the six area based teams that come from our estates programme who also play in local leagues.

Centre Of Excellence

It has always been important for us to provide as many playing opportunities for young people as possible and to encourage them to fulfil their potential and go as far as they can. Over the past three years therefore we have developed opportunities for players who show exceptional talent. In 2001 we were awarded Centre of Excellence status for girls and since then have established four age groups and worked with 500 girls aged 10–16. We now have one of the best centres operating in London with an experienced team of staV oVering not only high quality football coaching but also sports science, fitness and nutrition packages. Through this work we have also been able to strengthen our girls and women’s teams and currently have two reserve and one first team with players who have come through our system. To complete the football continuum, in 2003 we were oVered the opportunity to operate and manage the Boys Centre of Excellence on behalf of Leyton Orient. It was recognised that we were in a strong position in terms of networks, access and coaching structure to run the boys centre and that with the 11–16 year old players under our wing we would be able to oVer a complete package. We have since established a trading arm: Leyton Orient Youth Development, who operate and manage both the boys and girls centre of excellence. For players 16 and over we have also developed progression routes by firstly establishing six estates based teams who all compete in local leagues, (the highest ranking playing in the Middlesex League and seeking intermediate status). Secondly we have established a strong link with Tower Hamlets College 3049211016 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 134 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

and have established a Football Academy with them working with young people who have come through our programme. The students are placed on courses that fit their interest and ability and in exchange receive coaching and playing opportunities with our staV. Thirdly we have established a strong network of local semi professional clubs who we refer players to on a regular basis. Again most of these players have come through our estates programme with at least 10 linked up with semi professional football clubs. In essence therefore we have the structures, knowledge and networks in place to ensure that if any player from the estates based programme shows aptitude and ability then we can help them fulfil their potential. We have vast experience of organising and running tournaments and leagues ranging from cluster area inter primary school tournaments to 12-week football and Basketball Leagues.

Inter school tournaments—secondary school leagues

For a number of years we have run inter school tournaments in our areas of work. These competitions can bring together anything from four to 15 schools. On the Isle of Dogs for example we hold twice- termly tournaments in Netball and Football, which regularly attracts eight local schools. For the past four years we have also been running Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets inter secondary school girl’s leagues with eight schools and two age groups competing in each. These run from September through to March and oVer hundreds of girls the opportunity to play competitive football on a weekly basis.

Amalgamated Boroughs League (ABL)

The most ambitious league we created ran during 2004 in football and basketball and was based on similar summer leagues that we have run since 2000. The ABL therefore brings together young people from our projects in Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham and Waltham Forest and Barking And Dagenham as well as teams from projects closely linked with us including the Roma Support Group from Newham and Village Club and Poplar Youth United from Tower Hamlets. The football league ran for 16 weeks with the Basketball league running for 8 weeks. In all over 400 young people were taking part in the leagues every Sunday. This League forms part of a broader network of leagues and tournaments that we have established over the past five years. Most take place during the holidays and are turn up and play and some like the ABL have become fairly sophisticated. We have also linked up with other partners including the London Playing Fields Society and the Refugee Council and have established a London wide Communities league, which has been running since 2003. This followed on from All Nations Festivals held during 2002 and 2003, which reached out to a number of refugee, asylum seeking and ethnic minority communities. It is aimed at communities that want to play organised football but do not have the skills to join more formal leagues. Therefore a support package is oVered to each team as well as coach education and team organisation. The League caters for adults as well as providing a more informal league for 14 and 15 year olds. Many of our estates based teams play in this league and we also support and chair the league and use our resources and knowledge to support the teams. The variety of leagues and tournaments that we run as well as the links with the All Nations League and more formal leagues means that we can join this up with the estates based programme and oVer comprehensive playing opportunities for individuals and teams in Newham.

Tennis

We have been delivering an outreach tennis programme in the Waltham Forest area since June 2002. We have also established regular tennis coaching sessions held on Saturday mornings and during the school holidays and oVer curriculum time programmes in the spring and summer terms. We have two fully qualified coaches and have established a very strong link with the Essex LTA.

Netball

We began delivering Netball in 2000 predominantly on the Isle of Dogs (as described previously) and in Hackney through school and after school sessions, inter school tournaments and the creation of a club on the Island. We currently also deliver netball in Waltham Forest through the school sports coordinator programme. We have two level Two and 3 Level One coaches as part of our team. We have also established good links with the regional Netball Association. 3049211016 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 135

Basketball We have used Basketball in a multi sports setting for a number of years but brought in dedicated coaches two years ago. Since then we have delivered coaching and set up school and community sessions in Barking, Woodberry Down and the Isle of Dogs. This led to the creation of an all communities summer league, which was based in Barking but had representative teams from Newham, Waltham Forest, Barking and Tower Hamlets. By holding this league we widened our Basketball network and have made contact with a number of clubs, umpires and coaches. We now have employed a full time Basketball OYcer who will develop the sport across our areas.

Supporting Club Development An important part of our programme is establishing regular competitive playing opportunities for young people who traditionally would not have the opportunity. We have therefore over the past 15 years set up and supported a number of teams and clubs. These include:

Leyton Orient Women and Girls Football Club When we first began we were interested in supporting more girls and women to play football. Within Waltham Forest there were very few playing opportunities and a couple of fledgling clubs including Chingford Ladies. It was agreed that this team would come under our wing and be developed accordingly. We therefore provided coaching, access to facilities and capacity building the committee. After 14 years the club now has three junior and one senior team competing in local leagues, a strong committee made up of parents and volunteers and its own sources of funding. The links with us remain strong with oYcers providing support and advice when needed. The club buy in our services including coaching and some publicity and capacity building continues to play an important part.

Clapton Orient Women’s Football Club Following the success of Leyton Orient it was agreed that when we began to work in Hackney in 1992 one of the legacies should be the creation of a borough representative side. Unlike Waltham Forest there were keen individuals but no clubs to build on and so for two years we ran regular women’s only sessions, created a team and set up a committee. By 1995 Clapton Orient had been formed and nine years later the club continue to sustain and thrive in the Greater London Leagues.

St John of Beverley Deaf Football Club We began coaching a group of deaf adults based in Hackney in 1996. This group soon formed a team and entered both Deaf and over time, mainstream London leagues. Our current role is to support and develop the club and its committee. This has included applying firstly to Awards for All and then the Football Foundation for club funding and training up players to become coaches. The club currently has two men’s and one women’s team.

Island Netball Club The Island Netball Club was formed in September 2001 and focused on running a junior section but within three months a women’s section had been created due to the interest shown by local parents and female residents. In the summer of 2002 the club took part in its first tournaments and now regularly plays in the Essex Met Saturday league. There are currently 60 women registered with 25 regularly attending and they have formed their own committee and now have their own bank account. They are currently being encouraged to move to the next level of paying for training and facility hire with the longer-term aim of delivering netball sessions in the schools. Currently three of the members have been trained up to coach at level one standard and will begin working in the schools in September.

Estates based teams In the late 1990s we began to expand into working with groups and individuals in the local areas who were deemed at risk of oVending and/or substance use. This work has allowed us to develop programmes delivered in a range of areas and has also led to the development of teams who play in regular Saturday and mid week leagues. Each of the six teams created have established at least two playing sides under and over 16 and are currently in the process of setting up committees and independent status. At least three players from each team have been trained up to deliver coaching sessions. The longer-term aim is to enable each of the teams to run the community sessions in the local areas and to attract funding to sustain this work as well as the team. LOCSP are currently spending some considerable time building this level of confidence and expertise to achieve this aim. The teams currently being developed include: Leyton All-stars; Eastside; 3049211017 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 136 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Woodberry Down, Portway Athletic and Gascogine Estate Crew. It is envisaged that we would look to create teams from the Newham commission and encourage those that are interested into coaching and working back on the programme.

Education and Training Programmes Over the last seven years the education programme developed by Leyton Orient Community Sports Programme has expanded in its scope and depth of provision across North East London. The first full time teacher was appointed in 1998 to deliver curriculum projects such as “Learning Through Football” to schools in Tower Hamlets and Hackney and also introduced afterschool study support and holiday period educational activities. This form of programme was also used in Waltham Forest, in particular on a “bridging project” that linked a number of primary and secondary schools in the South Leytonstone area. Over the last three years a major afterschool study support programme called “Playing for Success— Innovations” has been run at the football club and has led to a second teacher being employed. As part of this programme students attend five literacy/numeracy and IT sessions in participating schools followed by five sessions at an IT suite at the ground. This project is now currently being expanded to full model status with a new IT facility being incorporated into the new West Stand at the club. During this period a “Healthy Lifestyles” project was also delivered to many primary schools across Hackney and Waltham Forest that combined workshop sessions with practical PE activities. The last two years have also seen a large expansion in the amount of 14–19 work that the Community Programme has developed. A Football Industry projects combines a study of the industry based on Leyton Orient FC with a coaching session in the afternoon and several Open College Network qualifications have been written especially for the project. The Community Programme has also run Junior Sports Leaders and Community Sport Leaders Awards courses to enable young adults to gain experience of leading sports sessions themselves.

Developing Partnerships and Networks At the heart of any of the work that we develop is the need to have a good range of partners and networks. We have therefore established a strong network of both sports and non-sports partners who have assisted us in developing our work. For example we have established strong links with the Sports Colleges and school sports coordinator programme in both Waltham Forest and Hackney and the SSCO Programme in Tower Hamlets alongside non sporting partners such as the borough based YOTs, DATs and youth services. From the many examples that we have the following demonstrate best how networks and partnerships have worked.

London Community Sports Network The London Community Sports Network is an initiative that we have been developing over the past four years. It aims to create an umbrella agency that supports development of the voluntary sports and community sector in London. The Network has further objectives, in working with community agencies that deliver projects promoting equity and social inclusion and to perform a pressure group function voicing grassroots concerns. Over the past three years the Network has grown dramatically and has a base of over 400 groups. Targeted work has also been carried out with London East Connexions researching the strength and potential of the community and sports sector in engaging with Connexions target groups. Through the network, its members will be equipped to respond and contribute to Government initiatives aVecting their local areas, such as Neighbourhood Renewal, access funding for development, build partnerships with other agencies and have a forum to discuss current issues.

The Score Project Over the past five years we have been focusing our eVorts on developing the Score Project. This is an exciting and ambitious concept which will provide essential new recreational, sports and community facilities for the residents of Leyton, Leytonstone, south east Hackney, Stratford and Walthamstow. It is one of the first attempts nationally to bring to life the Social Exclusion Unit’s Policy Action Team 10 Report on how sport and the arts can contribute to crime reduction, health awareness, educational attainment and employability. SCORE will be a split site community venue, located opposite Leyton Orient Football Ground on under and disused local authority land. A community building will house a variety of diVerent activities including indoor sports, childcare, disability services, youth provision, meeting spaces for local groups, a community health centre and access to training and employment services. In addition, there will be major upgrading and improvement of existing football, tennis and bowls sporting facilities; multi use games area and new children’s play areas. The project’s roots lie in work undertaken in recent years by a number of local organisations, which identified a real need for better quality and aVordable community facilities in an accessible location which would attract communities historically under represented in terms of their sports participation. The outreach work programmes designed around the facility will support this 3049211017 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 137

approach with targeted programmes aimed at young oVenders, stable and ex drug users, excluded pupils, refugees etc. The key partners for Sports Club Orient are English Partnerships, O-Regen a community economic development agency, the Primary Care Trust and a number of local community and sports groups. The Football Foundation, Sport England Lottery Fund, Bridgehouse Trust, ERDF and the PCT have all contributed funds adding up to £10 million. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Manchester City Council Manchester City Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above enquiry and makes the following submission: MCC is totally committed to community sport and active recreation as a vehicle for delivery of its community and social regeneration strategies and since the award of the XVII Commonwealth Games in 1995 has committed ever increasing resources to community sports development. In 1996 the City Council agreed its first ever Sports Policy and Sports Facilities Development Plan. This recognised that sport can have a significant influence on young people and has a major role to play in social and community regeneration strategies. Partnership working was a key element in this strategy and today MCC Sports Development has an annual budget of £1.6 million of which over 56% (£900,000) is levered in from other public sector partners, sport governing bodies and the private sector. Manchester is committed to using sport as an engine for local achievement, to support the city’s economic and social renewal and to provide qualitative changes in the lives of local people. Sport, active recreation and the city’s public parks and open spaces are also a powerful weapon in the fight against obesity and ill-health. The City’s community sport activities are broadly divided into two categories: (1) sports development; and (2) community leisure and active lifestyle programmes. A summary of current activity includes:

Sport Development Programmes — City wide sport specific development programmes in 14 sports tailored to the needs of local communities. Generally delivered in dynamic partnership with national governing bodies and local sports clubs these local development programmes oVer participation and development opportunities from grass roots to performance. — The UK’s largest local authority coach education programme. Over 100 courses per year increase the number and quality of coaches available to deliver the city’s community sport activities, improve the sustainability of local sports clubs and enhance individual employment opportunities. — A £100,000 per year grant aid programme for local sports clubs through the Manchester Sports Development Commission. This is available to support agreed development and capacity building activities eg the creation of junior sections and competitions, school-club links and new sports initiatives in schools and to support local talented athletes. — The development of talent identification and age-group performance programmes and the creation of City of Manchester clubs participating at the highest national level in each of the city’s focus sports. — A comprehensive events programme from local primary school festivals to major national and international events. These high profile events not only build on the legacy of the Commonwealth Games to further enhance Manchester’s national and international image but also provide the opportunity for local sportspeople to see and be enthused by the very best. — The facilitation of, and support for, innovative local partnerships to deliver quality sporting facilities and opportunities eg Gorton Regional Gymnastics Centre and Amaechi Basketball Centre.

Community Leisure and Active Lifestyle Programmes — The Positive Futures Programme: A city wide social inclusion initiative funded by the Home OYce and targeted at young people 10–19 years of age. — Let’s Tackle Truancy Through Sport: This uses a pro-active multi-agency partnership approach to deliver citywide leisure opportunities for individuals who are at risk of truanting or being excluded from school. 3049211018 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 138 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

— Passport to Sport: A citywide programme of sport and physical activity opportunities that encourage children to engage in regular physical activity outside of school. — Healthy Walks: A citywide programme of walks in the city’s parks and river valleys. — Programmes developed with local “Friends of Park” groups to deliver outdoor sport and active recreation programmes within a strong neighbourhood framework. — A rolling programme of capital improvements to the city’s parks and playgrounds including improved access for the elderly and those with disabilities and the provision of imaginative educational and play facilities. — Swim For Life: Delivered in all Manchester’s community pools and targeted at all ages and abilities. We believe this to be the UK’s most comprehensive and innovative community sports development programme which helps contribute to the city’s economic and social regeneration strategies and corporate objectives as follows:

Benefiting the economy — Enhancing the national and international image of the city. — Increasing the skills and interests of its people. — Developing it’s attractiveness for people to live, work and invest.

Improving health and well being — Improving the physical, social and mental health and well-being of citizens particularly in those communities with the greatest health needs and inequalities. — Increasing the proportion of residents taking part in physical activity and exercise, particularly schoolchildren and the over 55s.

Developing education and skills — Raising attainment levels and reducing attainment gaps. — More young people engaged/re-engaged with education and/or training. — Reducing levels of truancy and exclusions from schools.

Creating stronger and safer communities — Reducing crime (and the fear of crime) across the city and in priority neighbourhoods. — Reducing youth oVending and improved prevention of oVending amongst young people at risk. — A reduction in anti-social behaviour.

Enhancing social inclusion — Greater engagement with young people from under-represented groups. — More young people from specifically identified groups introduced to, and permanently involved in, sport and recreation activity.

Enhancing the sporting infrastructure — Developing and promoting a seamless network of opportunity for local people to start, stay and succeed in sport. Through all these programmes young people are the primary focus because: — They are a priority in Government, City Council and Sport England community strategies. — The most eVective way of encouraging active lifestyles is to attract and engage peopleatan early age. — As a vehicle to combat crime, improve health and promote social inclusion sport and physical activity is most eVective when introduced via intervention at an early age. — Raising educational standards in the city’s schools is a high priority. —AVecting lifestyle change to improve health is acknowledged to be more eVective if the fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle are introduced at an early age. In summary Manchester City Council is committed to, and invests heavily in, community sport and our aims are to build upon Manchester’s strong sporting heritage and passion for sport. 3049211018 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 139

The City Council believes that local authorities have a major role to play in the provision of sport and active recreation for local communities. They are in a unique position to understand local community need and to recognise and facilitate the potential for beneficial partnership between the public sector, sport governing bodies and the private and voluntary sector. We wholeheartedly support the Committee’s enquiry into community sport in the UK and would welcome the opportunity to provide further evidence to the Committee in due course. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by Pertemps People Development Group

Introduction 1. This document forms Pertemps People Development Group’s contribution to the inquiry into Community Sport. It seeks to set out our views on how a greater level of sustained participation in sport might best be achieved. These views are based on our experience of delivering sports based programmes over the past five years, and also on our experience of using sport as a medium to deliver other, primarily employment focussed programmes. The Annex to this document explains who PPDG are and the level and type of involvement in Community Sport, in order to provide some context to our views. We would welcome the opportunity to provide further contributions to this inquiry, should the Committee find this useful.

Barriers to Sustainable Participation

Funding Streams 2. Much of the funding which is made available for Sports Development is both small scale and short term. In general, funding will cover the cost of the key workers or coach, but rarely allows scope for the further development of the programme for example; reward programmes such as awarding body qualifications or visits to see the “professionals” at work. These types of activities can be particularly motivating for young participants. 3. In general, a funding stream which lasts up to 12 months, does not allow suYcient time for providers to work with other organisations, in order to develop partnerships which might add value to the funding being given. By extending funding periods and contracts to 24 or 36 months, it might be possible to secure additional funding for specific activities from the private sector or professional sports clubs under sponsorship arrangements. 4. Often funding streams are also set up to deal with single issues, such as sports development, ignoring other areas of development which need to take place in order to make the sports development work sustainable. For example, the barrier relating to local ownership below may be related to low levels of qualification amongst the adult population of a neighbourhood. Without addressing these needs, the sports specific funding loses its ability to sustain activity once the funding ends.

Local Ownership 5. Our experience shows that very often local people are very willing to volunteer to help programmes operate, whilst external providers such as ourselves are involved. This willingness to volunteer rarely, however, develops into a willingness to lead the activity once the funding has ended, thus an opportunity to build social cohesion is lost. There may be a variety of reasons behind this which are likely to include issues such as low levels of educational achievement and the consequent fear of failure preventing them working towards coaching qualifications, unwillingness to take responsibility for potentially diYcult children, and the fear of other parents’ reactions to their attempts to maintain a good standard of behaviour.

Lack of Strategic Aims 6. As stated previously, many very short term programmes are set up for very specific reasons, for example school holiday play schemes. In these cases very often little thought is given to the longer term potential of what may be a taster session for a good number of people. Therefore opportunities to build social capital by linking up with local sports clubs or to set up new community teams are lost. 7. The presence of sporting activities in an area can have a positive economic eVect. Where residents are involved in legitimate sporting activities, there is less of a propensity towards the sort of street crime and vandalism which blights many areas where young people in particular have few or no appropriate facilities. The presence of sporting activity can therefore help an area become a better place to live and more attractive to other people and potentially businesses which are looking to relocate. In this way sport can start to 3049211019 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 140 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

regenerate an economy so long as it provides a permanent facility. In eVect it is the first step to economic recovery and therefore the strategic links to other initiatives are vital if the funding provided is to be used to best eVect.

Environmental Issues 8. Whilst deprived communities are in desperate need of support in setting up activities which will divert residents of all ages away from anti-social and criminal pursuits; opportunities to develop sustainable participation in sports are limited through the lack of a safe environment in which participation can take place. For example, in areas where drug abuse and gun crime are prevalent, fears for personal safety or the safety of one’s children is likely to prevent residents undertaking the journey to the new basketball court, or indeed any new indoor facility—regardless of the quality and safety of the facility once access has been gained.

The Future for Community Sports 9. Through our delivery of sports and related activities in the community we have identified a number of clear benefits for the economy and for communities in general which span the whole age range of participation. In addition to the obvious health related benefits which clearly have a positive eVect on the economy, PPDG would suggest that the following benefits: — Reductions in: Anti Social Behaviour, Truancy, Criminal Behaviour Role of Private Sector in Community Sports Development—economic drivers. — Increases in: Community Cohesion, participation in education/training, self esteem, motivation and confidence amongst participants. 10. PPDG would strongly recommend that the further development of community sports is done in conjunction with other political and social agendas, in particular that the Social Inclusion, Social Justice and Health Agendas are combined to ensure that the barriers to sustainable participation are tackled through a single project. This could be achieved by developing projects which have clear, definable targets related to sustained sports participation in addition to outputs set by other funding bodies, for example achievement of qualifications or job outcomes. Our experience of Employment Zone, where funding is combined into a single budget in order to address the whole gamut of barriers, both work and non work related, has clearly demonstrated that a holistic approach to issues improves both overall success rates of programmes and in particular, the sustainability of their outcomes. 11. Through our use of sport as a medium of engagement, we have engaged clients who would normally not consider entering training or employment centred provision. We have not only given these clients’ sporting skills, but also the confidence and motivation to enter or re-enter the labour market. Thus were sport to be the first line of attack in a co-ordinated approach to regenerating communities, providing a permanent hub for social activities onto which other services could be attached, the likelihood of sustained participation in sport would increase, possibly in line with the rate at which the community and its economy improves. The key to ensuring the continuing participation in sport, therefore, is to enable programmes to have suYcient longevity to allow the sport itself to become a part of each participant and communities life. In addition to forming a springboard for further growth, this would also enable programme providers to work with partners to provide value added services, such as sponsorship which ensure that additional support is provided and an eVective exit route to independently funded provision can be found. Key points we would suggest the Committee should consider are: — Ensure that both strategic and operational objectives of any initiatives are clearly defined and linked to key local agendas. — Ensure that allocation of funds is made on condition that specific outcome targets are met. (Outcomes need not all be numerical—an exit strategy to ensure continuing participation could be a key criteria for funding). — Pooling funding with other departments to ensure all the needs of the participants and their communities are met. — Longer-term projects. Three years would be ideal to ensure the programme could produce “value added” outcomes. — Greater use of the private sector providers when allocating funds. The drivers of the private sector are diVerent to those present in public and voluntary sectors. Whilst traditionally this has been seen as negative in this arena, the private sector are more likely to ensure that outcomes are exceeded and to develop innovative partnership arrangements to ensure programmes are eYcient. The success of Pertemps Coachright as a not for profit organisation has demonstrated the benefits of private sector drivers in the not-for-profit sector. Additionally “value added” may be achieved by involving companies with an active Corporate Social Responsibility Agenda. — The development of “whole family” programmes. Sport is an inter-generational medium and can help with a path to a healthy retirement just as it can to the development of a healthy young adult. 3049211019 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 141

Annex

BACKGROUND TO PERTEMPS PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP 1. Pertemps is the UK’s largest independent recruitment consultancy with almost 200 branches and associate companies. As the part of the organisation with responsibility for the delivery of Government Welfare to Work initiatives, Pertemps People Development Group has two divisions, Pertemps Employment Alliance, the operational division and Pertemps Training, which oVers a range of work based learning provision. Operating in various UK locations, Pertemps Employment Alliance is a market leader in it’s field enabling disadvantaged job seekers to secure sustainable employment and to overcome many of the issues associated with social exclusion. The key to success is in the company’s ability to successfully facilitate the process of accessing the workplace through one of the many employment programmes. 2. At PPDG, we run a range of motivationally based programmes helping to build confidence and boost the self-esteem of clients seeking employment. Cricket Without Boundaries, run in partnership with Warwickshire County Cricket Club, enables a significant number of participants to return to employment through engagement in sport. In addition, we have devised and deliver a range of innovative personal development programmes designed to help people understand and realise their true potential. Qualified and experienced staV enable people to explore the notion of limitless potential, which can often be blocked by our own belief systems. Through a variety of activities, people identify areas for change and the techniques that can be used to manage this change. The programmes are extremely “delegate focused”, encouraging full participation in a comfortable, safe and supportive environment. 3. Most importantly, we recognises that everybody has a talent and we aim to provide the necessary support to enable these talents to blossom, allowing individuals to use them to build the basis of a career. For those with musical aspirations, this support is provided through our Making Music Work initiative, oVering guidance and advice to work in the music industry. This might be as a musician, technician, promoter or even teaching in local schools. 4. PPDG passionately seeks to release the talents that each of our clients holds within themselves. As a result we will always encourage self-employment as a potential career option to job seekers with an entrepreneurial streak and who can demonstrate a sound business plan. Throughout the start-up process, a PPDG development coach with specialised knowledge is available to oVer any necessary support. Our centres work alongside Street UK, a charity supported by the high street banks providing advice on business start-ups and helps those clients unable to access traditional business financing. Arrangements also exist with a number of the large banking institutions, including HSBC, NatWest and Lloyds TSB and the Inland Revenue business support team who deliver regular half-day workshops to clients in all aspects of tax and VAT issues. Sustainability of work for self-employed clients is very important to PPDG and the company employs the services of its former clients wherever possible. The range of occupations is endless from car valeters to a reflexology teacher and sometimes the more unusual, including a private investigator and a man who cleans up after a crime scene. In terms of sports specific self employment our “Mini BICCS” Programme is enabling young people with an interest and talent in sport to train to coach a range of sports with the view to them becoming self employed at the end of the programme. This programme involves clients experiencing a range of activities within recognised sports institutions giving them a knowledge of the various disciplines involved in working within the sports industry, from front desk to actual delivery. 5. This passion for releasing talent and for developing communities is the driving force behind much of our sports development work for adults in particular. Through Pertemps Coachright, a not-for-profit organisation within the PPDG group, we work with a large number of young people from a wide range of backgrounds each year.

Our Involvement in Community Sport

Range of activity 6. PPDG oVers both wet and dry sports. These range from team games such as football, rugby, basketball, cricket, netball and hockey, through to individual small group activities such as martial arts, health and fitness circuit training, conditioning exercise classes. Our range of outdoor activities covers activities such as cycling, walking, outdoor pursuits, outward bound, fishing (as and when required). In taking forward each of these sports we endeavour to work with community groups, or the community focussed division of local clubs, eg we have developed a joint programme in Teeside with the Mohawks basketball team’s community arm “Hooped Dreams”. This programme combines basketball with a citizenship programme, thus addressing wider social issues through the medium of sport.

Scale of participation 7. Some three thousand children and young people are engaged with on an annual basis. Children range in age from five upwards with the majority being between 5–14 years of age. On a weekly basis, we have contact with some 500 young people, either directly through Pertemps Coachright or in partnership with other agencies who subcontract from us. 3049211019 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 142 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

8. The young people we work with come from a variety of backgrounds. Some are engaged through Mainstream Education, whilst others work with us as part of the Alternative Curriculum. A growing number of children who are either at risk of exclusion, oVending, or display the characteristics of Anti-Social Behaviour are also participating in our programmes. Many young people participating in our programmes are from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Our programmes can also help children and young people with special needs, moderate learning diYculties, or moderate forms of disability. 9. Much of our involvement with adults is linked to our motivational programmes which seek to re- engage adults into employment by demonstrating their abilities and in particular their transferable skills which may then be awarded by accredited qualifications thus better equipping them to enter the workplace. This initial motivational work can also be developed further with a growing number of adults leaving our programmes with a coaching qualification.

Mode of engagement 10. Participation in our programmes is most eYciently achieved through the marketing and publicity provided through our partner organisations. As the quality of the provision and the benefits both to the individual and to the wider organisation are recognised, key workers such as those in the Connexions Service, Pupil Referral Units, Youth OVending Service, Drug Action Teams, Youth Service and other voluntary sector partner organisations are delighted to market our services to Young People. Where programmes are more generic and seek to engage those who are not engaging with any of the statutory or voluntary agencies, we use Outreach Workers to identify and engage with participants. This is particularly the case in some of our initiatives for adults, for example our programmes for Lone Parents which operate through the Employment Zone and Aston Working Neighbourhoods project. Very little direct, traditional marketing is used. 11. Whilst these measures ensure a sensible number of children and young people attend our activities, their retention on the programme is dependant on a number of other factors: — Good safe practice. — Variable challenging activities. — Progression routes to permanent development of sport for life, such as positive exit strategies to club sports. 12. When monitoring our activities three key areas are always considered: — How eVective is the service? Does it meet the needs of the participants. — Is the delivery eYcient? This is usually achieved where the participants—and particularly young people are involved in the ongoing development of the programme, ie, they need to “have a voice”. — Learning Outcomes? What have we learnt in order to improve the service; services will not be sustainable if they do not meet the aspirations and expectations of their participants. 4 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Premier League The Premier League welcomes the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into the development of grassroots sport and current levels of participation by all members of the community. As one of the world’s most popular sporting competitions, the Premier League recognises the responsibilities that come with the tremendous profile, popularity and reach that football has in our society. An independent analysis, conducted by Deloitte & Touche, of the Premier League and its Clubs’ contribution to the community, found that almost £70 million a year is redistributed to good causes, with these projects reaching an estimated 3.7 million participants. In this submission we will explain how we work as a delivery partner with Government, harnessing the profile and appeal the League has in order to secure many positive policy outcomes, including increased participation and higher educational standards.

Increasing Participation The Premier League is committed to enabling all young people, regardless of sex, race, religion or disability to have access to a new generation of football facilities. The Premier League, along with the Football Association and Government, funds the Football Foundation which invests in improving grassroots football facilities. So far the Football Foundation has supported 1,200 projects worth almost £300 million. This money has funded over 200 changing pavilions, provided 100 schools with new football facilities and built 90 artificial turf pitches. The success of the Football Foundation in increasing 3049211020 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 143

participation can be seen through its investment in the ground redevelopment programme at Cirencester Town; the Club has now created ten pitches for youngsters. One person in 36 in the town is now involved with the team at various levels, from mini-soccer to adult teams. Our Clubs also oVer community coaching schemes, both inside and outside of school time, which provide the opportunity for young people to receive football coaching from qualified Premier League Club staV. Alongside school based activity, each of our Clubs runs social inclusion programmes that reach out to those who are otherwise diYcult to inspire and provide football based diversionary activities, at times of high crime rates, that oVer the chance for young people to participate in physical activity. These initiatives include estate based coaching programmes and football based marketing materials focused on cutting crime. For example, Fulham run Lambeth Estates United, a project which delivers coaching sessions based around 16 sites at or near to housing estates in the inner city borough of Lambeth. The aim is to promote team work, friendship, improved behaviour and good citizenship and address the issue of inner-city rivalry. Similarly, Charlton Athletic organises late night estate football leagues within the community action safety zones in Bexley and Greenwich. The League consists of 11 teams from 11 estates playing five-a-side competitions for 11–19 year olds. Positive behaviour is rewarded by various incentive schemes while negative behaviour results in loss of points for the team. Blackburn Rovers has produced a collector’s sticker book which has been distributed to most schools and youth groups within the locality. In total, around 8,000 of the books have been printed, financially supported by the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. The book contains messages aimed at tackling bullying, drug/substance/alcohol abuse and anti-social behaviour. The Premier League is also committed to using its proven track record in public policy to deliver health projects. Our work provides the opportunity for men, women and children to participate in physical activity as well as receive information to encourage them to make positive lifestyle choices. To illustrate the work of just one Club, Middlesbrough run a wide range of health projects including: — a school based healthy living programme in 25 primary schools in Cleveland and Redcar that is designed to improve health, fitness and nutrition; — a Fit for Work programme in partnership with their Primary Care Trust and local employment agencies that encourages physical activity as well as increasing job prospects; — a Family Fitness programme that has seen a group of Asian Mothers trained to become football coaches with a long-term view of setting up a local league. We are currently in discussions with the Department of Health on how to build on the wide range of health based programmes already being delivered through our Clubs. This will include the sharing of best practice between football and other sports, as well as the creation of a number of new initiatives including health based marketing campaigns that will reach out and encourage more people to choose healthy lifestyle options. As well as encouraging young people to participate in football, Premier League Clubs also provide opportunities for children to receive multi-sport training from expert coaches: — Arsenal delivers multi-sport coaching programmes to local primary schools with pupils having the chance to play football, hockey, tennis and cricket. — Norwich City runs a multi sport Healthy Kicking Initiative in 30 local schools. — Fulham linked with Surrey County Cricket Club to provide taster sessions in football and cricket during the school holidays. — West Bromwich Albion Community Programme have also provided training opportunities for young people to participate in a multi-sport programme, including cricket, basketball and football Level 1 coaching courses, with a view to increasing sporting opportunities for young people in the West Midlands. Our Clubs are also committed to providing opportunities for players with disabilities to participate in football. Everton’s community scheme, with funding from the Football Foundation, has provided specialist coaching schemes to 20 special schools, providing 400 children with learning disabilities and sensory or physical impairments regular opportunities to take up the game as well as compete in mini tournaments and festivals within school curriculum time. This work is repeated through their groundbreaking work with hundreds of wheelchair users, the blind, amputees and a wide range of disabled junior and adult footballers. As well as delivering physical activity programmes, our Clubs are committed to using the power of football to raise educational standards. Through football based learning programmes our Clubs have a proven track record in raising educational standards, re-engaging those who have dropped out of education and providing pathways to further education and employment. Playing for Success sees Key Stage 2 and 3 children visit Club Learning Centres—classrooms based within football grounds—to receive additional learning support to raise literacy, numeracy and ICT standards as well as self-esteem. The fourth year evaluation, published in April 2003, found that primary school children’s numeracy scores had improved by 17 months during the 10 week courses. Over 100,000 children have attended study support centres so far and 40,000 pupils are expected to benefit each year when all the Centres are operational. Children benefit from learning in a diVerent environment to school and are rewarded with Club merchandise, match tickets and receive certificates from first-team players. 3049211020 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 144 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

In addition to Playing for Success, the Clubs run their own wide ranging educational programmes, through the Club Learning Centres or in local schools, which are designed to meet the specific needs of the local community. These projects include classes that engage children who have been excluded from mainstream education, courses that provide opportunities for adults to receive IT training and school based citizenship programmes. Some Learning Centres have even employed specialised language and science teachers to help deliver innovative learning programmes. The “Arsenal Double Club,” sees literacy and numeracy classes delivered by full-time Arsenal teachers in secondary schools in inner-London. Each 45 minute classroom session is followed by 45 minutes of football coaching with the Arsenal teacher.

The Prince’s Trust Football Initiative, funded by the Premier League, Football Foundation and the PFA, provides vocational 12 week courses leading to further training, education and jobs for 16–25 year olds who may be unemployed or young oVenders. The eVectiveness of these courses is carefully monitored: in 2003–04 79% of participants who were previously unemployed went on to find work, further education or training. We are looking to expand this programme in the future in order to provide more opportunities for vulnerable young people by running education programmes that provide direct pathways to employment.

In partnership with the National Literacy Trust and the Football Foundation, the Premier League is also committed to promoting reading and the use of public libraries through Premier League Reading Stars. A player from each Club is nominated as a Reading Champion. The player selects his favourite adult or children’s book which is then tailored into a national reading list. The Clubs “adopt” local libraries where family reading groups meet to discuss their book choices and take part in activities which help them to enjoy reading. In 2004, 96% of children and 95% of adults who took part in the initiative believed that it made them want to read more.

We have also created educational materials for a vocational qualification, First in Sport, which is designed to meet the needs of aspiring athletes and oVers the chance for those who are otherwise diYcult to engage the opportunity to gain academic accreditation.

Obstacles Facing the Premier League and its Clubs

The Premier League is very proud of the enormous strides it has taken since its inception in 1992 in developing pioneering initiatives that have successfully engaged people of all ages in improving literacy, numeracy and ICT skills, giving a positive direction to their lives and encouraging participation in football. Never in the history of the game, has football worked so hard to create a positive impact on society.

However, our success has been achieved despite the limited amount of Government investment in sport. The Premier League makes a significant contribution to the development of football in this country, giving more money to the grass roots than any other league in Europe. The latest Business in the Community Percent Club Index ranks the Premier League as the leading corporate UK giver in the Media, Entertainment and Leisure sector. In addition, the football industry continues to generate substantial tax receipts for Government and during the first 12 years of the Premier League, Premiership Clubs have provided around £2.5 billion in tax receipts for Government.

Our funding of the Football Foundation has made a major diVerence to the development of grass roots and community projects across the country. However, a recent audit of grass roots facilities demonstrated a need for £2 billion to be invested at a local and central level. Clearly, widespread Government investment is required as football alone cannot be expected to meet this need.

We encourage the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to look at ways of increasing Government’s investment in sport. As schemes such as Playing for Success have shown, the Premier League can bring the unique element of the power of football to motivate to any community scheme. Combining this motivational force with funding and expertise from Government departments and other partners and agencies, has already been proven to be a highly successful formula. We believe that with increased Government investment we can build on this existing work and deliver in many more public policy areas.

Long-term and sustainable funding would also address one of the other major challenges for Premier League Clubs when delivering community work. The constant search for short-term rather than long-term sustainable funding means Community staV time is often spent writing funding applications rather than delivering community work. Clubs are also faced by the problem of having to work with a number of diVerent agencies, many of whom are replicating the work of each other.

We look forward to working with various Government departments in the future in order to play our role in helping their key public policy objectives, as well as increasing participation in sport. 3049211021 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 145

Memorandum submitted by Richard Baldwin Introduction I am delighted to submit evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as an individual who has been involved in advising sport, particularly sports organisations in the voluntary sector involved in community sport, for the past 25 years. In view of the limited time frame for submitting evidence to the Inquiry, my comments are brief though they are intended to form the basis for a follow up discussion on the detailed action needed, specifically in the voluntary sector.

My Sports Experience I have specialised in providing professional advice to sport since 1980, principally in relation to taxation matters, but also in relation to management organisational constitutional and broader financial issues. I have advised DCMS, the National Governing Bodies of Sport (NGBs), the Sports Councils and Business In Sport and Leisure. I am currently Lead Tax Partner in Deloitte’s Sports Business Group. Over the past two years I have also been an individual member of The Central Council of Physical Recreation and have been working with CCPR, DCMS, Bates Wells and Braithwaite solicitors and the Inland Revenue in a Working Party to secure tax breaks for Community Amateur Sports Clubs (CASCs). The Working Party met initially in 1999, but having secured the introduction of favourable legislation for CASCs in 2002 and 2003 it continues to meet to encourage the development of grass roots sports through CASCs. My comments are principally concerned with the voluntary sports sector. I have read and fully support BISL’s paper to the Committee on Community Sport, which has recently been submitted.

Community Sport and the Voluntary Sports Sector

Government’s approach Over recent years there has been an increasing and welcome realisation by Government both that sport itself is a powerful force for good (sport for sports sake) and that sport also can be an important tool to deliver Government policy objectives, especially health policy. The current Government has demonstrated that it clearly recognises the importance of sport, and there appears to be an emerging commitment to play a role in improving both grass roots participation rates and elite success. Sports policy has over recent years evolved considerably. “Game Plan (2002)”, Government’s key sports strategy document, sets an exceptionally demanding target for increased participation rates, but lacks detailed delivery strategies and funding commitments. Government’s twin aims for sport (increasing grass roots participation and elite success) exactly mirror the strategic objectives in organisational structures of NGBs within sport. Game Plan and other policy documents contain concrete examples of the positive impact of sport on health and strong but less quantifiable evidence of sports’ benefit to anti-crime, education and social inclusion issues. These positive impacts are largely based on increased grass roots participation. DCMS seems to have identified Sport England as the strategic leader for the delivery of community sport in England. The Government must recognise that neither DCMS nor Sport England can deliver the community sport objectives of Game Plan without partnerships in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Though Government’s stated policy is to devolve authority for spending to professional, competent and modernised NGBs, this has not yet become a reality. Indeed, voluntary sport continues to suVer from a lack of funding and a tax system that deters investment in grass roots development; sport swells the Exchequer by making a massive tax contribution, little of that contribution being reinvested by the public sector in sport.

The voluntary sectors’ contribution It is recognised that there are four major sectors contributing to the development of grass roots sport, being: — education, principally through school sport; — the private and commercial sector; — local authorities; and — NGBs and the voluntary sector. It is my belief that insuYcient attention has been given by Government to creating an eVective partnership with the voluntary sector, based on stable financing of the sector in order to achieve Government aims. Voluntary sector sport and recreation is the only delivery system whose primary purpose is the development of sport and recreation. Voluntary sports clubs, of which there are around 150,000, cater for millions of participants and oVer a wide range of opportunities for all, including volunteering. There arean estimated 1.1 million volunteers in the four major sports of cricket, football, lawn tennis and rugby union 3049211021 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 146 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

alone. NGBs provide the structures under which sport at grass roots level can operate and develop. They also invest significant sums each year into grass roots development. The major sports of cricket, football, lawn tennis and rugby union alone invested over £120 million in grass roots development in 2002. Broadly, these funds are sourced from their “professional” activities, and the investment takes place without any matching contribution from Government. Indeed, in some cases this investment is taxed (see below). They face serious issues of under-funding, mountains of red-tape and diYculties in maintaining a plentiful supply of volunteers, which are essential to their prosperity. Investment in sport in the UK currently lags behind our main international competitors. This is reflected in grass roots participation. Thus, for example, Australia invests £51 per person per year compared to only £21 in England. Participation levels in Australia are 39% compared to England’s 28%. (Source: CCPR Red Book for Sport and Recreation—March 2005).

The tax system It is not only the case that direct funding to sport needs to be improved but also an arbitrary tax system that does not encourage voluntary sport at any level needs to be changed. Unlike many of our international competitors, the tax system levies a heavy burden on this sector. Indeed, “The Value of the Sports Economy in England in 2000”, published by Cambridge Econometrics, estimated that total revenue to Central Government from sports related activities exceeded £5.5 billion in 2000 (comprising mainly income tax and VAT) compared with direct investment in sport of £661 million, ie for every £1 Government invests in sport, it takes out nearly £9. I have first-hand evidence of the vagaries of the tax system as it applies to sport, particularly NGBs. All seem to be taxed slightly diVerently; there are no corporation tax exemptions (unlike Australia for example). In the case of many NGBs, eg Rugby Union and Lawn Tennis, the eVective tax rate suVered by the NGB is significantly in excess of the statutory rate of 30% and higher than their commercial counterparts. At the extreme, the sports governing body that breaks even and makes no profit will find itself paying corporation tax because of the disallowance of its grass roots development costs. For example, if the Lawn Tennis Association were to break even as a result of distributing all of its profits for grass roots development purposes, it would still face an annual corporation tax liability of between £2 million and £3 million. These direct costs are in addition to the significant professional fees and management time spent in planning around a tax system a design for commercial operations. Valuable help was provided to local sports clubs in 2002 if a club registered as a CASC. This help principally comprises 80% mandatory rate relief, and gift aid relief for individual donations; there are also corporation tax exemptions for income and gains, limited in some cases. However, CASC registration provides no relief whatsoever from value added tax, which continues to take massive amounts out of voluntary sport. There is little incentive to invest in new sports facilities when a major part of the cost does not qualify for corporation tax relief, and the VAT charged on the cost of those facilities, particularly in the case of members’ sports clubs, is largely irrecoverable. This could easily be addressed by the adoption of a VAT refund scheme similar to that introduced by the Government for churches. There seems to be no appreciation within Government of the extent to which grass roots sport relies on volunteers who are inundated with red tape largely generated by Government. This problem extends towards grant funding, which seems to change regularly with each new initiative and impacts to the extent that often volunteer oYcials just give up. Added to this is the disincentive of heavy-handed accountability and monitoring, particular of capital spending, where grants are involved. A good example of the bureaucracy that clubs face is the national minimum wage where regional Inland Revenue monitoring teams have been visiting clubs to ensure that NMWrequirements are dealt with. We re it not for the recent intervention of the Inland Revenue Head OYce Policy Team at CCPR’s instigation, NMWwould have become a serious disincentive to volunteering.

Government support There is no single source of advice for the grass roots club. Government agencies seem to think it more important to compete for power, authority and funding than they do to support and provide guidance/ advisory services on a national basis. Finally, there seems to be a lack of trust of NGBs within Government, and, particularly within Treasury, a lack of interest in adequately funding the sports sector. Certainly there is no joined-up thinking within Government, despite all the benefits that sport brings in terms of health, physical education, crime and disorder reduction, social inclusion and improving the quality of life within the community.

My suggestions for the future If Government wishes to develop grass roots sport eVectively and to encourage further participation thus meeting its Game Plan objectives, there needs to be a significant change in approach. I oVer the following suggestions: 3049211021 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 147

— Government needs to engage the voluntary sector fully with a sensible co-ordinated plan for its involvement, together with the other three key sectors. The benefits are enormous but, despite protestations about joined-up thinking within Government, this is not happening. A starting point would be to have a one-day brainstorming meeting attended by representatives from all four sectors. This could then be used as a basis for developing a new partnership, particularly with voluntary sector sport to help achieve the Game Plan vision of a mass participation culture and the associated health and social inclusion benefits. — Funding to voluntary sport needs to be significantly improved. Funding is needed for new capital spend on facilities and revenue funding for coaching and development, principally people costs. A recent study for the four sports of cricket, football, lawn tennis and rugby union estimated that at least £400 million pa over 10 years was needed to drive a significant increase in the number of participants. Whilst this seems a substantial figure, it should be read in the context of Game Plan’s conservative estimate that the health cost benefits of a 10% increase in physical activity will be approximately £500 million pa. I suggest that as an initial step, Exchequer funding for sport and recreation should be doubled. A much more imaginative approach would be for DCMS to agree a joint funding of community sport with its colleagues in Health and Education. — A small part of any increased funding should be devoted to setting up a new national unit, possibly organised through CCPR, to provide advice to the voluntary sports sector, particularly clubs. The CASC scheme has provided a useful template with a free hotline being established by CCPR. This arrangement demonstrates that the demand is there and, indeed, the CASC initiative has been successful in ensuring that club registration is now well over 2,000 clubs, with over £5.5 million injected into sport already. This success has been based on free seminars and publications such as Deloitte’s “Community Amateur Sports Clubs—The Tax Options” providing detailed guidance particularly for NGB’s and their membership clubs. — The tax system could be significantly changed to provide an incentive for voluntary sector sport. Some suggestions are: — to exempt NGBs from corporation tax, or to provide them with incentives to invest in grass roots sport through a sports development allowance; — to provide tax relief for capital spending on sports facilities; — alleviating the VAT burden for clubs and NGBs, particularly in relation to expenditure on new facilities; and — Government should develop a coherent tax plan to encourage grass roots sport, which HM Treasury buys into. — It is acknowledged that the structure of voluntary sport is complex, as is the funding of sport from various Government departments. What is needed is a true partnership between Government and the voluntary sector, the latter having real influence on Government policy. Voluntary sector input could be co-ordinated through CCPR and the major sports bodies. At the moment, Government policy seems to be developed without having the input of those who know how grass roots sport operates. Further, Government seems to lack the necessary commitment, which is evident from the inadequate funding for sport, an unfair tax system that forces international sports federations such as ICC to relocate away from the UK, and the relative unimportance of DCMS amongst Government departments. 31 March 2005

Memorandum submitted by SheYeld City Council

Response to the Public Health White Paper

1. The relative importance of physical activity (PA) The city welcomes the emphasis given to PA in the Paper. However, the importance of PA within the public health debate has been historically under-estimated. It is unfortunate that the Paper has not taken the opportunity to correct this, particularly given the evidence recently presented in the CMO’s report. PA reduces the risk of all-cause death and in particular the risks associated with England’s number one killer—CHD (accounts for 39% of all deaths). The British Heart Foundation recently published data estimating that 37% of coronary heart disease deaths can be attributable to physical inactivity, compared to “only” 19% from smoking (Britton and McPherson, 2000). More importantly, physical inactivity is the most prevalent risk factor (Joint Health Surveys Unit, 1999; Health Survey for England, 1988). For example, 63% of men and 75% of women are not active enough to benefit their health (ONS, 1998). By comparison, “only” 28% of men and 26% of women smoke and “only” 41% of men and 33% of women have high blood pressure (British Heart Foundation, 1998). 3049211022 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 148 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Recent work in Canada (CFLRI, 2000) calculated the relative community impact of inactivity versus smoking, high cholesterol and hypertension ie the relative impact of inactivity on all-cause death. It concluded that the relative risk associated with low activity exceeds that of all the other factors considered.

2. Underpinning principles Whilst we generally welcome the idea of supporting “informed choice”, it is concerning that this is not fully complemented by the essential “underpinning principle” of key “enabling” measures that will significantly reduce barriers to physical activity—particularly for those living on low incomes. There is a danger here of de-contextualising PA from the wider environmental, cultural and social influences and instead being seen to promote a “self help” and potentially “low cost” approach. We believe that major infrastructure and environmental measures are needed to truly facilitate increased activity and these we feel are given too little emphasis in the Paper. In summary, what is needed is a “whole systems” approach which encompasses a coherent package of measures on both the demand side (advice to individuals, marketing etc) and supply side (facilities, environmental changes and capacity building in clubs etc). Both need an investment programme to make them happen. Overall, the paper is reasonably strong on demand side proposals but falls short on the required supply side measures and fails to address some of the consequent investment issues such as the crisis in indoor sports provision (see later).

3. Over-arching priorities We welcome the fact that “exercise” is included in these priorities. However, we note the reference to “over a third of people are not active enough to benefit their health”. In fact, the figure should read “almost 70% are not active enough”.

4. Marketing health We applaud the focus given to the importance of tackling the so-called “demand side” of health. The Canadian experience strongly suggests a “contributory” relationship between social marketing and activity levels ie impact on awareness, understanding and intent (Canadian Journal of Public Health, June 2004). However, the Paper suggests that in terms of the early focus in the marketing strategy, physical activity will feature only within the context of a wider obesity campaign. This raises a number of concerns: — as stated above, physical activity is one of the most prevalent health risk factors and should command “its own slot” as a stand alone campaign; — as the CMO recently confirmed, PA impacts across 20 or so chronic diseases and should not be confined to only one; — the levels of PA required to combat obesity (60 minutes or more daily) are unsustainable for most people; — obesity aVects “only” a minority (20%—albeit growing) of the population and therefore any PA message within an obesity-led campaign is likely to meet with a “won’t happen to me” response from the vast majority of the population; — lastly, evidence from other successful PA campaigns tell us to avoid “medicalising” the message. On a more positive note, any campaign to promote physical activity should take into account the following key points: — avoid words that carry “perceptual baggage” such as “sport” and “exercise”; — focus on fun and enjoyment and employ humour wherever possible; — associate PA with the benefits that target audiences value eg for young people valued benefits include spending time with friends, having fun, playing, gaining recognition and success; — focus on those who are “ready to be active” as well as the least active; — go beyond the “just-the-facts” message that typifies many public health campaigns—especially for young people (eg an hour a day or 5#30 minutes); — promote a “can do” message and not a “must do” message; — emphasise positive messages. Negative messages usually turn people oV—“it won’t happen to me”. PA is about getting people to opt in/“starting” and make a positive choice, unlike smoking which is about opting out and stopping; — publicise local successes of “real people” and encourage people to “join in”; — emphasise simple, inexpensive and practical changes—“99 top tips to be everyday active” and “walk a street today”. 3049211022 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:32 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 149

Finally, the social marketing campaign should extend its remit beyond simply communicating the right message(s). It should also include three other key elements—mobilisation via promotional events; informational guides which support the “call to action” with information on what, where and how to be active; influencing by engaging key “influencers” in the community such as employers, head teachers, youth leaders, GPs, faith leaders, local government etc—these are the people who influence the everyday settings in which people can be active.

5. Children and young people We welcome the focus given to young people. It is clearly recognised that “activity habits” are formed in the earliest years. We also applaud the emphasis given to the Healthy Schools strategy. However, we would suggest a number of improvements to the proposals: — there is barely any mention of the critical importance of play as a source of physical activity— particularly for pre and primary school age children. Research by UCL (2004) found that children get more physical benefit from kicking a ball around in the park or playground than from PE lessons. The study concluded that the eVort of unstructured play burns more calories than the average of 70 minutes a week of formal games that pupils get in school; — we are concerned about the lack of priority given to pre-school and primary school aged children. Whilst investment in secondary schools is welcome, for too many—especially girls—the resources are coming too late; — we need to see a greater commitment to lesson time PE given the diYculties that many children— especially those from low income families—have in accessing after school programmes; — there needs to be much greater focus on the role of parents and the influence of the family in supporting active lifestyles. Inactivity is very much inter-generational and a schools-only approach will often not be suYcient to break this cycle; — there needs to be greater emphasis on non-school activities ie community-based physical activity for young people. From birth to the age of 16 years, a child spends only nine minutes of every waking hour in school. We need clear policies that encourage and support physical activity in the remaining 51 minutes! — there is still too great an emphasis on sport and traditional team games within the school sport partnerships. Whilst this is fine for some children, we know that traditionally the majority have been “turned oV”. Many young people—especially girls—are attracted by more individual-type activities such as dance, walking, cycling and aerobics; — the focus in schools should be on health-related physical activity—which includes, but goes beyond, just sport. The role of physical education as the “spring board” for developing interest, confidence and skills in activity should be emphasised—PE should aim to truly “physically educate” young people. The Paper should recommend this more comprehensive approach to PE within schools as part of its strategy for promoting informed choice; and — the support for cycling and active travel plans is welcomed. However, once again, these “tactical” measures must be coupled with more strategic proposals to tackle the wider infrastructure and environmental conditions. For example, cycle parking and lockers will remain largely irrelevant if safe, direct and segregated cycle lanes do not link the local community with its school.

6. Local communities leading for health We very much welcome the importance attached to the role of local government in promoting health and in particular the centrality of local authority and PCT partnerships working at the local level. We also welcome the expected flexibility oVered by the new Local Area Agreements. However, we would wish to see a requirement that promoting physical activity form a key element of the work of all LSPs and LAAs. The references to “whole town” approaches to active travel are to be supported. However, the commitment and follow-through on this appear to be rather vague. Similarly, there is mention of the forecasted 7,000 miles of new cycle lanes, but this is from already committed resources. Where is the vision of how we will move towards a European-standard provision of integrated cycle and footways? The greater use of pedometers is to be welcomed. However, in the continuing absence of a serious strategy to promote a walk-friendly urban environment, we will continue to see a continuing decline in the numbers of people walking. We would have wished to see greater emphasis given to walking as the single most- important activity that can drive activity levels upwards. Pedometers will not overcome the real barriers to walking such as poorly lit routes, disconnected path networks, inadequate signage and benches and (perhaps most importantly) excessive and speeding traYc. It is surprising and disappointing that no mention is made of stair climbing as a potentially significant means of increasing daily activity levels. Stair climbing requires high energy output—8–11 Kcal per minute—which is high compared to many other forms of physical activity. Even climbing two flights of stairs daily can lead to 2.7Kg weight loss in a year (Physical Activity Unit, Canada 2003). Stair climbing is an 3049211022 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 150 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

activity which is accessible to virtually all the population and can easily be built into daily routines. An international physical activity conference in 1998 concluded that the most successful exercise interventions in the past 20 years were stair-climbing initiatives (Sallis et al 1998). The suggested best practice guide on free swimming would be helpful. However, once again there is concern that the real issue here is not the lack of ideas within local government but instead the lack of resources to support the consequent loss of income. Given the clear health economics in support of physical activity, one has to wonder why the rationale underpinning the government’s much-welcomed investment in free museum access does not equally apply to supporting (perhaps selectively) free access to physical activity. This is particularly the case with swimming—which is the second most popular activity and has safety as well as health benefits. An example of a cost-eVective and targeted method of supporting “free swimming” might be to oVer free “top up” lessons for those children who fail to achieve the minimum 25 metres during school swim programmes. Given that many of these children are invariably from low income families, the measure will also impact on reducing health inequalities. Our concern about the lack of investment in key infrastructure was mentioned earlier. Sports facilities— including swimming pools and parks—are vital elements in this infrastructure. Indoor sports facilities are used more than any other setting for sports participation and yet we know that the national stock of sports centres requires around £550 million to be spent immediately. There is only passing reference (in Case Study sections) to these facilities. The White Paper Delivery Plan must identify (or commit to identifying) a feasible way forward on this facility crisis. Arguably the only sure way of making progress is to place a statutory requirement on local authorities to provide and maintain “a reasonable” level of facility provision. This may then halt the downward trend in local government spend of sport (expenditure on sport by local authorities has fallen from £18 per head in 1998 to £12 in 2002). In the UK government spend on sport is only £21 per head per year compared with £112 in France. This under-investment is already adversely impacting on sports participation as the GHS 2002 clearly demonstrates. The Paper talks about health inequalities in Chapter 1. However, it fails to develop the case for specific actions for selected target groups. There is a real danger that a strategy that largely focuses on social marketing and informed individual choice will lead to greater inequalities in terms of activity levels. Evidence from Finland and Canada suggests that targeted approaches can help to increase activity levels amongst “least active” groups. We would therefore suggest that the Paper’s current focus on young people should be complemented by an equal focus on older people. There are a number of reasons for this: — 60% of those over 60 years are inactive; — Sport England’s Sport Equity Index confirms that the group least likely to take part in sport is “70! DEs”. This means that this group is 87% less likely to take part in sport than adults generally; — there are more people over 65 than there are under 16; — low income households feature disproportionately amongst this group; — amongst those over 65, a significant number of deaths are attributable to falling—exercise can have a major impact on falls prevention and recovery; and — many experts are of the view that no segment of the population can benefit more from exercise than the elderly (American College of Sports Medicine). Despite this, insuYcient work to encourage physical activity has been done with this growing population group. The proposal for PCTs to work more closely with football clubs appears to be disconnected from any broader strategic theme within the Paper. This should fit within the wider social marketing strategy and must be clear about the intended message(s) and the likely audience.

7. NHS Health Trainers An acknowledgement of the importance and complexity of behaviour change is welcomed and we would broadly support experimental work with Health Trainers. However, a number of critical issues must be considered: — all primary care staV—including GPs—must be better engaged with the preventative agenda and in particular with physical activity. The danger in creating specialist roles (Health Trainers) is that this wider engagement is made even less likely (the “it’s not my job” syndrome!) — physical activity must be given equal prominence within the scope of advice available from Trainers; — advice to clients must include both structured (facility based) options and lifestyle (no or low cost, often home-based) options; — the social marketing campaign must create clear and simple physical activity messages—including audience specific messages—to be used in primary care settings; — the early development of the proposed Patient Activity Questionnaire is a critical pre-requisite to the success of the advisory scheme; 3049211023 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 151

— it must be recognised that there is little evidence of any long-term impact of advisory/counselling services based in primary care settings (Emmons and Rollnick, 2001). It should also be of concern that the cost of establishing such “downstream” services would not be easily sustained by absorbing them into mainstream general practice; and — it is once again critical to emphasise that without policies that support environmental and infrastructure improvements, advice within primary care settings will have little sustained influence on patient activity levels. In conclusion, we recommend that this proposal is taken forward with care and that wherever possible both a whole systems approach (including environmental and infrastructure changes) and strong evaluation measures are put in place at the same time.

8. A health-promoting NHS We clearly support the concept of the NHS moving towards a more preventative role. However, given the threat posed by inactivity (discussed earlier) it is concerning that there is little mention of physical activity in chapter 6. There is significant potential for primary care staV to positively influence physical activity levels. However, at the moment there is little incentive in terms of the current performance management systems (in primary care) for physical activity to be given priority. The current requirement for PCTs to have a physical activity policy is a start but it is not nearly enough. A new strategic approach to fully engaging and supporting the primary care sector to promote physical activity is required. This must ensure that physical activity is part of the care pathways for medical conditions; that the promotion of physical activity is a routine part of practice consultation and that physical activity features in all relevant performance management systems.

9. Work and health We very much support the proposed inclusion of health within the IiP standards for 2007. Whilst we wouldn’t disagree with the idea of tax-eYcient bike purchase schemes, we must re-iterate the essential point that such “downstream” measures aimed at individuals will fail hopelessly without the “upstream” environmental measures needed to make cycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.

10. A Physical Activity Promotion Fund Whilst any additional funding is to be welcome, we would strongly urge that such a Fund is dovetailed with and complements existing funding for sport and physical activity. Local government is keen to see a “single pot” for sport and physical activity (drawing together the diVerent funds) and would ideally wish this to be allocated to a local physical activity partnership (perhaps within the “health” arm of the local LSP). The partnership would then be required to produce a plan (with identified projects, costings and outputs) submitted for approval before being allowed to draw down the allocation.

11. Regional Physical Activity Co-ordinators There must be clarity as to the role of these posts and consultation should take place with local partners in each area to ensure that “added value” results from such appointments.

12. The voluntary sector If the activity targets set by “Game Plan” are to be met then this will place significant pressures on the voluntary sports and physical activity clubs in the community—pressures that they are currently unable to meet. Urgent and much greater investment is needed in the infrastructure of these clubs. Whilst initiatives such as “Step into Sport”, “Club Mark” and CASC are helpful, they are not enough. Radical increases in participation will require more significant and sustained investment in the voluntary sector.

13. Making it happen—national delivery There is a need for greater clarity about the respective roles of the DoH and DCMS/Sport England. For example, there appears to be a danger of both Sport England and DoH working in parallel on potential social marketing initiatives. There is also occasional apparent inconsistency about the scope of Sport England’s interests eg does it include walking or not? If Sport England are to take a lead on the social marketing strategy they must take heed of the dangers of using “sport” as part of the headline messages and they must fully embrace “lifestyle” activities such as gardening, taking the stairs etc (as the recent NE pilot appears to have done). 3049211023 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 152 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

At times Sport England claim to have a single focus on “sport” ie competitive and organised activities such as rugby, football, cricket, swimming etc. At other times, its attention ranges across “lifestyle” activities such as walking, cycling, dance etc. (ie non-organised, informal and often individually-based activity). Clarity and consistency would be helpful on this important issue. One view would be that the DoH take the lead on the lifestyle activities and Sport England lead on sports activities. Clearly there would need to be close and on-going dialogue between both organisations—particularly on issues such as the social marketing strategy.

14. Making it happen—local delivery Much greater co-ordination is needed of physical activity programmes and projects at the local level. Too often local government falls back on a narrow facility management role, whilst PCTs too often have little capacity or inclination towards physical activity. It is recommended that each locality is required to form a physical activity partnership involving local government, the PCTs and where possible commercial and voluntary sector agencies. This should form part of the LSP (preferably under its “health” arm) and be required to produce a local physical activity strategy and to oversee its implementation. It is extremely unfortunate that the White Paper has not taken the chance to realign PCT boundaries with those of local authorities. This would provide a much stronger platform for joint planning and working.

15. Conclusion Overall the White Paper represents a significant step forward in the public health debate. It also gives greater prominence to physical activity than has hitherto been the case. The recognition of the need for social marketing is very much welcomed, as is the importance aVorded to individual behaviour change programmes. However, the Paper places too little emphasis on key infrastructure and environmental measures that are needed to support the marketing and behaviour change programmes. It also fails to follow through the health inequalities issue with targeted programmes for the least active—especially older people. Finally, the Paper misses the chance to articulate the truly prominent role that physical activity can play on the wider public health agenda. Inactivity poses the most pervasive public health risk in England and should therefore be treated as a “stand alone” issue in its own right, rather than its proposed status as sub- text within the obesity debate. 6 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by Sportsmatch

SPORTSMATCH—THE BUSINESS SPONSORSHIP INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR GRASS ROOTS SPORT

Introduction The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has agreed to inquire into community sport and the support provided to it, by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, UK Sport, Sport England and local authorities. The Committee has indicated that it wishes to focus its inquiry on the development of grassroots sport and participation, and intends to review existing initiatives and expenditure. Submissions have been invited from interested organisations. Sportsmatch is the government’s business sponsorship incentive scheme for grass roots sport. It is funded by DCMS via Sport England and administered by the Institute of Sports Sponsorship (part of the European Sponsorship Association).

The Sportsmatch story Sportsmatch was launched in November 1992 following discussions between representatives of business sport and government. The objective of the scheme from the outset was to encourage the business sector to invest money in sport at the grass roots level. Commercial sponsors would be incentivised to put funds into bone fide sports development programmes by Sportsmatch being able to match that money—the combined funding going to applicant organisations capable of delivering sustainable community activities. Sports deliverers range from NGB’s with country-wide schemes to local clubs and schools operating in small communities. 3049211024 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 153

The success of Sportsmatch in meeting its overall objectives is demonstrated by the records and by research statistics. More than 4,800 companies have had their sponsorship of grass roots sports projects matched by Sportsmatch since 1992. 4,600 sporting projects have been co-funded by these sponsors. The nearly 5,000 sponsoring companies range from large concerns such as McDonalds, Coca Cola and Nike to many small local businesses. Their investment ranges from £500 to more than £50,000 (the most we can match) and the average sponsorship is more than £8,000. Independent research shows not only that the vast majority of these sponsors would not have invested in grass roots sport without the Sportsmatch incentive (or would have invested far less) but also that the vast majority carry on with their sponsorship programme long after the three year maximum extent of our matching. Further, the projects which Sportsmatch has encouraged sponsors to support represent around two thirds of the sports sponsorship activity of these nearly 5,000 companies. Priority is given to new sponsors and/or significant increases in grass roots sponsorship funding. The sporting projects themselves principally involve coaching and development programmes which increase participation and improve basic skills. Applicants can be NGBs, clubs, schools, local authorities or other competent deliverers of sporting experience. Sportsmatch-inspired programmes represent more than half their total community development work. The average scheme involves more than 1,000 participants—the great majority under the age of 18—and around 500,000 new participants are drawn into new sporting experience each year. Most activities extend for more than one term and many for more than one year—at a cost to Sportsmatch of under £10 per participant.

Sportsmatch priorities

Since the outset of the scheme, agreed priorities have been followed and met. Sport for school-age youngsters, for the disabled, for ethnic minorities and for women/girls have been priorities since 1992. Evolving government priorities have been added—urban and rural areas of deprivation, disadvantaged social groups, projects with social inclusion/cohesion outcomes, all have for many years been given priority in Sportsmatch co-funding decisions by our independent Panel. Other key priority considerations are the innovative nature of sporting activities, robust school-club links and projects with clear sustainability. Our research and evaluation programmes underpin our determination to ensure, as far as possible, that these priority aims are fully met. In order to make sure that projects co-funded by Sportsmatch and sponsors work in accordance with the sporting strategies, nationally and locally, all applications over £5,000—and some others—are referred to Sport England and to the appropriate governing body for comment and recommendation. Our research demonstrates: more than 95% of participants in the schemes we co-fund are under the age of 18; 25% of schemes include people with disabilities; 40% of schemes include ethnic minority participants; and 76% of schemes include women and girls. Sportsmatch makes a very considerable contribution not only to the sporting life of the country but to social well-being and the national health and fitness agenda.

Sportsmatch funding constraints

In the first part-year of Sportsmatch funding in England our grant was £1.1 million. This rose quickly to £3.7 million in 1994–95, at which point—as part of an overall government curb on departmental budgets— it was reduced to £3.2 million pa. In recent years it has slowly increased again but at £3.675 million for 2004–05 and the same level for 2005–06 it is still below the level of funding of ten years ago (without taking into account the eVects of 10 years of inflation). Operational costs of the scheme have been held at £5–600,000 pa, allowing for more than £3 million to be allocated to awards. However funding constraints have forced modifications to funding policies (such as reducing second and third year co-funding to 50% and 25% respectively). Despite these, and other, modifications and prudent elimination of applications deemed unlikely to succeed, eligible applications have consistently exceeded funds available—in some years by more than £1 million. 3049211024 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 154 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Working with Sport England Sportsmatch and its staV have worked closely with Sport England since the scheme started in 1992, not only through regular consultation on applications as described above but also by having Sport England representation at Panel meetings, variously as members or observers. Since 2001, funding for Sportsmatch has been channelled by DCMS via Sport England. Funding has been ring-fenced but accountability has been to Sport England. In April 2004 Sportsmatch moved to the Sport England oYces in Holborn albeit retaining autonomy through the grant made to the Institute of Sports Sponsorship to administer the scheme. Even closer links have been established with Sport England staV at head oYce and in the regions and discussion between Sportsmatch and Sport England staV have strengthened the long-term benefits and strategic integration of many applications.

Sportsmatch and Sport England strategies The government’s strategic review and the “Game Plan” document of 2002 set a new agenda for sport in England. This included new roles, priorities and structures for Sport England. In turn Sport England reviewed its own strategic approach as outlined in “The Framework for Sport in England” and in nine regional review documents. The Framework for Sport set out the vision for sport in England—“to be the most successful sporting nation in the world”. At the root of the strategy is the simple focus to help people start, stay and succeed in sport. An analysis that a change in culture is needed in order to increase participation in sport across all social groups and to bring about improvements in health and other social and economic benefits is taken through a process of change drivers and settings to seven main outcomes: — increasing participation in sport and active recreation; — improving levels of performance; — widening access; — improving health and well-being; — creating stronger and safer communities; — improving education; and — benefiting the economy. Sportsmatch is independent of Sport England but works with it to achieve mutual objectives. In every one of the above outcomes Sportsmatch can demonstrate its contribution—in many of them with great significance. This is particularly so in respect of the Sport England objective of significantly increasing participation in sport by at least 1% year on year. Sportsmatch has proved its eVectiveness in contributing significantly to participation increases by helping to fund local sport development initiatives. Moreover Sport England has recognised that funding—and other support—from the commercial sector will be vital to the achievement of its objectives and has pledged to explore avenues to create new partnership opportunities. This is the aim which Sportsmatch has pioneered and developed so successfully for more than twelve years and we will work with new structures, such as County Sports Partnerships, to further these aims. Although based in London, Sportsmatch works on a regionalised basis and believes in delivering national and regional objectives at local level.

The current debate Currently, sports funding structures are undergoing further examination and analysis—eg the recent announcement of a National Sports Foundation and the impending “Carter Review.” Those involved with the Sportsmatch scheme are determined to ensure that the success of the scheme and its substantial contribution to national objectives for community sport are fully recognised in this process. The messages which we wish to impart are as follows: Sportsmatch is unique in utilising public funds to leverage additional funding from the commercial sector into sustainable community sports programmes—particularly at local level. Sportsmatch actually delivers funding and activity which is entirely relevant to government and Sport England objectives. Sportsmatch has been, and will continue to be, the most eVective means of achieving increased participation in sport. Sportsmatch priorities reflect those of government and Sport England policy and the priorities are met and add measurable value. 3049211024 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 155

Recommendations We commend the success of the Sportsmatch scheme to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and hope that the Committee will agree that: 1. Commercial sector investment at community level is vital for the development of grass roots sport and requires sustained encouragement. 2. Sportsmatch has proved to be the most eVective means of attracting sustainable commercial sector investment into grass roots, community sport. 3. Community sport is delivered in a variety of ways and requires funding support at a variety of levels. The Sportsmatch model can be extended to operate at any of these levels. 4. Funding constraints alone have limited the scope of development: significant additional funding, with a medium-to long-term commitment, should be allocated to Sportsmatch in order to realise its potential to harness public-private partnership investment into all levels of community sport.

EXAMPLES OF GRASS ROOTS SPORTS PROGRAMMES FUNDED BY COMMERCIAL SPONSORS AND SPORTSMATCH Organising body: Rugby Football League Sponsor: Arriva Trains Northern Activity: Girls grass roots coaching programme Sportsmatch award: £50,000 A first-ever grass roots sponsorship for Arriva Trains. The project reached 5,000 girls and created 300 teams in a regional programme to increase female participation in Rugby League and created structured programmes for coaching and competition in clubs. Organising body: Cornwall County FA Sponsor: Carrs Audi Activity: A community coaching programme Sportsmatch award: £3,000 The sponsorship targeted children aged 5–11 who had not previously had the opportunity to play football in their school or local club. Sessions were staged in 24 venues around the county with local clubs providing follow on opportunities. More than 100 girls joined local clubs and 20 new mini teams were created. Organising body: City of Westminster Sponsor: Pinnacle-PSG Activity: A programme of outreach sport Sportsmatch award: £10,000 Pinnacle-PSG used the sponsorship to oVer viable alternatives to anti-social behaviour on the housing estate which it manages. The one-year programme targeted five deprived wards in the City of Westminster and its success prompted the authority to continue its support subsequently. Organising body: British Disabled Water-ski Sponsor: Typhoon International Activity: Purchase of protective and safety equipment Sportsmatch award: £3,500 Typhoon sponsorship funded the purchase of vital kit to equip a mobile training unit that introduced water-skiing to young people at clubs around the country. The unit overcame the major problem of access and awareness of disability needs in local water-ski clubs. Organising Body: Stoke on Trent City Council Sponsor: Transform Schools Stoke Activity: A football development programme Sportsmatch Award: £30,000 Transform Schools used sponsorship as a means of reducing vandalism at a number of school sites it operates in Stoke that had become a significant factor in operating costs. The employment of a football development oYcer will provide a resource to develop and co-ordinate local activity, gain further funding and accelerate provision of football training in the area to disadvantaged members of the community. Organising Body: Seishin Judo Club Sponsor: BOC Edwards/BOC Group Activity: The creation of a new club Sportsmatch Award: £3,000 3049211025 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 156 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

BOC sponsorship supported the foundation of a new, school-based judo club and provision of regular coaching sessions at local centres that included the provision of equipment and coach education.

Organising Body: Cumbria LTA Sponsor: P U Dobson and Sons Motors Activity: A schools tennis programme Sportsmatch Award: £7,750 The “Serving Tennis to Schools” project provided curriculum and after school activity, teacher training and award schemes to encourage take-up and participation in the game. Local schools, including special needs, were provided with kit, instruction and a tennis festival that recognised achievement and developed skills.

Organising Body: Capital Kids Cricket Sponsor: British Land Company Activity: Coaching for primary school cricket Sportsmatch Award: £10,000 The lack of cricket for inner city schools has been addressed by Capital Kids Cricket since 1989. Sponsorship from British Land brought nearly 1,000 hours of coaching to 80 schools and left equipment in place to ensure continuity.

Organising Body: Golf Foundation Sponsor: The Telegraph Plc Activity: Introduction to golf for inner city youngsters Sportsmatch Award: £50,000 The Telegraph sponsorship introduced golf to 20 schools in the inner city areas of Birmingham, Liverpool, London and Southampton. Almost 10,000 children participated in the initial stages which built up to a merit award scheme enabling 1,000 children to gain an unoYcial handicap at a par 3 course.

Organising Body: Hackney Community College Sponsor: Moneygram Activity: A multi-sport programme Sportsmatch Award: £50,000 Get Started with Moneygram was aimed at new immigrants to Britain to help their assimilation through a range of sporting initiatives. As well as a range of indoor sports the scheme delivered advice on language courses, employment opportunities, health, housing and banking. March 2005

Memorandum submitted by Swim 2000 UK

UK Swimming is a Shambles I am Mr Frank Kennedy, Director of SWIM2000 a private Learn to Swim and Swimming Research Centre situated near Cheltenham Gloucestershire. www.swimmingteacher.com I am an ASA Advanced Teacher, Teacher of Disabled and Fellow of the Institute of Swimming Teachers and Coaches with 35 years of teaching experience world-wide. The ASA under the leadership of John Lawton and David Sparks have failed British Swimming. For decades these two men have failed in their duty to provide the best opportunities for everyone to learn to swim. They have failed to strengthen links with private swimming schools and stubbornly refused to listen and share new ideas and ideals with this professional sector of the industry. Because of this, they have failed to make swimming accessible to all and 20% to 33% of British people are still unable to swim. The ASA’s teaching has become outdated and sub standard. In particular School swimming lessons are utterly wasteful of public funding and few if any new “worthwhile” concepts have been taken up to improve eYciency in the Learn to Swim programme. While the National School Curriculum expects 25 metres at the age of 12 the professionals expect this by the age of six. Under the present ASA system many 12 year olds fail to swim at all. 3049211026 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 157

Funding/Spending From a professional point of view we can only get financial assistance through this failing and inferior “amateur” Governing Body. I am a respected world leader in modern methods of teaching of beginners to swim. I live one hour away from Loughborough but after 35 year of teaching and researching I have never been invited to join in or speak at any ASA meeting or Seminar. This leaves me feeling totally alienated from them. I have often oVered to prove how outdated their methods are but they always refuse to listen. Their present teaching standards deserve nothing but ridicule, and I am still available to prove this. The desperate and futile GOLD MEDAL rush is typical of the ASA’s limited and short term thinking. Buying in an Aussie coach to work with a handful of British swimmers, who have made it to an elite level is too late. These teenagers have already missed the boat. Far too much money is being spent at the wrong end of the industry. Britain produces dozens of potential Ian Thorpes who today leave school unable to swim because of our outdated school learn to swim programmes. Our bank of elite swimmers could and would be 1,000 fold greater in a decade from now if the ASA would listen to reason and make the necessary changes, reinvesting their funding more wisely at the Learn to Swim stages. As this is not a short term fix, younger men with modern minds and longer futures are probably needed at the head of our governing bodies.

Swimmings “Vision for the Future” . . . A good example of their limitations

Just look at the front page of the VISION for the Future. It shows a child floating around in plastic arm bands with his head held up in what the professionals mockingly call “the spinal spasm position” (introduced back in Edwardian times). A Nation of children are being damaged like this by the ASA/STA methods every day. Maybe it’s about time that parents took some legal action to prevent their children from being traumatised by such stupid outdated procedures. Underwriters beware! Then under MODERNISATION they say . . . “Swimming has recognised the need to change” What a very stupid contradiction that is! I hope that this inquiry starts making changes at the very top and is ready to listen to people who are working successfully outside of this miserably failing governing body. As with most things in life the independent professional knows a lot more than the well funded amateurs. 22 March 2005

Memorandum submitted by the The Prince’s Trust

1. Background

The Prince’s Trust exists to help young people to overcome their barriers and get their lives working. Through practical support including training, mentoring and financial assistance, it helps 14 to 30 year olds to realise their potential and transform their lives. The Trust focuses its eVorts on young people who have struggled at school, have been in care, are long-term unemployed or have been in trouble with the law. The Prince’s Trust has developed eVective partnerships with football, cricket and rugby to help recruit, retain and motivate young people on two of our key programmes—Team and xl. Team enables 16 to 25 year olds, the majority of whom are unemployed, to improve their employability by developing key skills such as communication, tolerance and working with others, to increase their self-esteem and confidence and to earn nationally recognised qualifications. During the 12-weeks, young people undertake work placements, complete team projects in their community, enjoy a residential activity week and get support with basic skills and planning for their futures. On average, 75% of young people who were previously unemployed will go on to further training, education or employment after the course. xl is a team-based in-school programme for students aged 14 to 16, who are at risk of underachievement, truanting or permanent exclusion. xl club activities are designed to improve students’ self-esteem and confidence, leading to increased attendance, better behaviour and improved chances of completing their schooling. Described by OFSTED as a “very eVective alternative curriculum”. Students meet for at least three hours a week, guided by an xl club Adviser at 600 schools across the UK. By working in partnership with sports authorities, professional clubs, players unions and commercial sponsors, we are able to access prestigious facilities, staV and famous players, to the benefit of thousands of socially excluded young people in the UK. 3049211027 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 158 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2. The Prince’s Trust Football Initiative Our largest sports partnership, it was first piloted in 1997 at eight Premier League clubs, and expanded between 2001–05 with £3.8 million funding from the FA Premier League, the Football Foundation and the Professional Footballers’ Association to 65 clubs. The scheme has recently received a further £2 million funding from the three partners to run until 2008. — 9,000 young people will have benefited by April 2005. — Of those who were previously unemployed, more than 75% have gone on to employment, further education or into training. — 22% were young ex/oVenders and 13% were young people in or leaving care. — 17% were from black and ethnic minority groups. Premier League, Football League and Conference division football clubs provide substantial in-kind supporttoimproveyoungpeople’semployability,tosupportskillsdevelopmentandincreaserecruitmentand retention on the course including: recruitment events, team bases and “graduation” events at stadiums; motivational workshops on healthy lifestyles, teamwork and over coming barriers; interview skills training withHRstaV,workplacementsandpart-timejobsinhospitalityandstewarding;smallsidedtournamentsand skills days at Clubs and training grounds; Q & A sessions with players; stadium tours and free match tickets.

3. NatWest Cricket with The Prince’s Trust The programme builds on The Prince’s Trust Football Initiative, working with 12 first class County Cricket Clubs with the support of the Professional Cricketers’ Association and NatWest. The support given varies from club to club, but includes motivational talks, player involvement, cricket coaching, talks on healthy lifestyles, space for a team base in the grounds, and work placements at the clubs. Approximately 620 young people have benefited from the partnership to date.

4. RBS 6 Nations with The Prince’s Trust Working with the English, Welsh and Scottish rugby union governing bodies, RBS 6 Nations with The Prince’sTrustsupportsstudentsattendingxlclubsinsixschoolsnearTwickenham,TheMillenniumStadium, CardiV andMurrayfield, Edinburgh.The partnership providesaccess to playersand educationalmaterials; as well as coaching from staV on nutrition and healthy lifestyles, tours around stadiums and museums and tag rugby sessions. 90 young people will benefit from the partnership by Summer 2005.

5. Key Deliverables of Prince’s Trust Sports Partnerships 5.1 Supporting education — 90% of individuals on Team gain City & Guilds Profile of Achievement, xl club students work towards an ASDAN accreditation. — Team participants have opportunity to achieve Key Skill Units in Communication, Working with Others, Taking Responsibility and get support with basic numeracy and literacy. — Sports-based activities are designed to develop teamwork, communication and citizenship skills.

5.2 Developing self esteem and encouraging healthier lifestyles — Activity sessions and skills days delivered at professional football, cricket and rugby clubs, encouraging participation amongst hard to reach groups. — Diet & nutrition and menu planning sessions delivered by Club StaV. — Teamwork and motivational workshops given by Club staV and famous players. — Individual cash grants of up to £350 available to fund further participation eg purchase of sports equipment, gym membership fees, FA Level 1 and 2 courses. — Community Sports Leadership Award being introduced on football-linked Teams from April 2005. — 87% of young people asked said Team had improved their confidence and motivation. — 84% believed they were more tolerant and better at working with others as a result of their experiences and 70% felt “more satisfied with life”.

5.3 Developing employability and job pathways — Football clubs provide access to Learning Centres, interview skills sessions, careers fairs and work placements at stadiums (eg hospitality, coaching, grounds keeping, ticket oYces, club shops) and paid employment for young people after the courses. — “Get Into Retail” and “Get Into Catering” industry taster sessions being piloted at football clubs from April 05, with support from local private/public sector industry employers. — Access to stadiums and club staV fosters awareness of work environment. 3049211027 Page Type [O] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 159

— 87% of young people linked to football clubs believe the Team programme had improved their job prospects.

5.4 Promoting community renewal and volunteering — Team-based approach brings together people from diverse backgrounds, helping to tackle anti- social behaviour, create new social networks and learning environment. — Financial value of the voluntary work undertaken by each team is approximately £7,250. — Supporting the Government’s volunteering strategy through delivery of community projects and equipping young people with leadership and coaching skills through the Community Sports Leadership Award.

5.5 Working in partnership — Sports partnerships supported by significant private and public sector investment—FA Premier League, NatWest, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, Football Foundation, Professional Footballers Association. — Weworkwith100!“deliverypartners”todeliverTeamandxlincludingschools,Fire&Rescueand Police services, other voluntary groups and FE colleges. — Evolving work within Government priority areas including Sports Action Zones. — Involved in sector developments eg Barclays Spaces for Sports and participating in Sport England- led Youth Sport Development Network. — Improving links with specialist community outreach organisations eg Muslim Youth Helpline, Asian Football Forum to support BME uptake.

6. Case Study—Pete,23 Pete was kicked out of home at 16. He ended up in a homeless hostel, and became involved in crime and drugs. During a de-tox programme, Pete was told about a Team running locally, supported by Southampton FC. During the 12-weeks enjoyed a tour of the stadium, received signed merchandise for fundraising and free tickets to a match. Pete had always been a huge Saints supporter, but this was his first opportunity to see them play. He completed his work placement working with Saints in the Community and was delighted to receive his certificate from then Saints’ striker James Beattie. Pete said: “Rather than sitting around and doing nothing, ThePrince’s Trusthelped mefocus ongetting outand gettinga job.Being linkedto SouthamptonFC made me look at how the club works with young people in the community. I decided that that was what I wanted to do, work with young people.” At the end of the course, he was successful in securing a permanent job at an activity centre where he has been working for almost a year, teaching young people outward-bound activities such as climbing and abseiling. 1 April 2005

Memorandum submitted by UK Sport UK Sport is pleased to submit a written contribution to this Inquiry. The organisation was founded by Royal Charter in 1996. The Charter requires our objective to be “fostering, supporting and encouraging the development of sport and physical recreation and the achievement of excellence therein” in the United Kingdom. It is on this basis that we are making a submission to the Inquiry. As you are aware the principle focus of our activity is at the “elite” level, working in partnership with other sporting organisations to lead sport in the UK to world class success. As such, our strategic and financial involvement in promoting community sport is limited; however there are important elements of our work which impact upon it.

Sporting Role Models UK Sport’s work is primarily directed at improving standards of performance in the Olympic and Paralympic family of sports. We currently invest around £20 million of National Lottery money per annum in developing world class athletes to compete successfully at the highest level and win medals. In doing so, we support the creation of sporting role models to inspire and motivate both young and old to take up sport, either to attempt to emulate their heroes or just to improve their overall health and fitness. Whilst mindful of achieving a balance in the demands that we place upon our top athletes, we also ensure that they “give back” to society by becoming involved in programmes designed to engage local communities in sport and recreation at a national and regional level. An excellent example is our hosting of the staV delivering the “Changing Lives” programme—a joint initiative between the Youth Sport Trust, DfES Behavioural Unit, BSkyB and UK Sport. The programme takes recently retired athletes into schools to help re-engage young people back into school life. 3049211028 Page Type [E] 14-05-05 01:16:33 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 160 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

The athlete mentors aim to motivate, inspire and challenge the young people by talking about their own lives and experiences, focusing on the six “attributes of successful sporting attitude” defined by the British Athletes Commission: mental toughness, hunger to achieve, people skills, sports knowledge, breaking barriers and planning for success. The programme commenced in February 2005 with Bryan Steel (double Olympic medallist from Track Cycling) visiting a group of targeted young people in Hull Trinity House School, and the aim is to visit the 250 schools across England that are part of the BSkyB Living for Sport initiative. UK Sport hosts the programme manager, provides oYce space and equipment, and also drives the recruitment of the athletes through our Performance Lifestyle programme for World Class funded athletes.

Drug-Free Sport In addition to our promotion of world class sporting success UK Sport is committed to promoting ethically fair and drug-free sport, with the aim of producing sportsmen and women that compete and win fairly at all levels. As the country’s national anti-doping agency, UK Sport currently coordinates over 6,000 tests carried out over more than 40 sports every year. We also take the lead in promoting Drug-Free Sport and provide education to new and existing generations of sportspeople through our ongoing “Start Clean” and “Stay Clean” initiatives. Leading athletes play a prominent role in UK Sport’s promotion of Drug-Free Sport. In May this year we are launching a major new education and outreach campaign which will use high-profile sporting role models to promote the importance of competing drug-free. The initiative will provide education resources to schools and individuals to ensure that everyone involved in sport is well informed about the decisions that they make. At the same time, to ensure that our policies continue to remain relevant and that we understand the attitudes of future generations to this important area of work, we will continue to work with specialist sports colleges to determine prevailing views.

Sporting Conduct Another key area for the Inquiry is our promotion of standards and behaviour in sport at all levels. Knowing the power of our leading sportsmen and women to influence future generations, we have undertaken extensive research in this area. As part of our ongoing Sporting Conduct Initiative we have carried out a series of spectator surveys on fair play issues at high profile events in football, rugby union, cricket, golf, rugby league and tennis. This work also involves in-depth discussion with players, coaches and oYcials about the values and norms of behaviour in their sports. Following this activity, we are also engaging actively with the relevant governing bodies, players associations and other interested groups to help devise practical and achievable strategies for tackling fair play issues and to showcase the steps they are taking to improve behaviour within the wider sporting community. Equality and Diversity As part of our promotion of sporting standards, UK Sport is also firmly committed to equality and diversity. We recognise that discrimination is unacceptable and will not tolerate it in sport at any level. To underline our commitment, we have developed an Equality Strategy and Race Equality Scheme, which establishes principles and policies within UK Sport and our work with partner organisations. We have also developed “The Equality Standard: A Framework for Sport”, in partnership with home country sports councils, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and equality organisations. This framework seeks to guide sports and community organisations towards achieving equality and assist them in developing structures and processes, assessing performance and ensuring continuous improvement in equality. We are particular active in promoting gender equality in sport, coordinating the development, with the Women’s Sport Foundation, of the UK’s first Strategy Framework for Women in Sport and measuring performance against targets for involvement and inclusion on an annual basis. It is on the basis of this activity that UK Sport actively engages with community sport and its promotion in the UK. Ultimately our ability to influence future participation is through our promotion of success at the elite level; we recognise however the many linkages between elite sport and the wider community and believe there is much we can do to ensure that the impact of sport on society at large is positive and provides opportunity for all. 31 March 2005

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 5/2005 304921 19585