HC Deb 30 October 1996 vol 284 cc615-22

1 pm

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the question of the British academy of sport when there is great uncertainty about its future. Time runs out at 12 o'clock tomorrow for the bids to own and run the academy. Some £100 million is on offer from the national lottery to guarantee sporting success but no one, even at this stage, knows how that success will be achieved and who for.

The Minister has been economical, to say the least, with his vision. Since the academy was announced in "Raising the Game" in July 1995—the principle of the academy has been accepted and supported by the Labour party and, indeed, all parties for some time—the Minister has said very little. In a debate last year, the Minister said that bids would be invited after consultation. He continued: They will be assessed by the Sports Council, which will announce its decision next summer."—[Official Report, 27 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1223.] It is now nearly November and not a single bid has even been opened. What has led to that delay?

A potentially far-reaching proposal has been hindered by lack of clear direction from the Government. Even those closest to the idea—the bidders, the sports bodies, the centres of excellence and the coaches—are stumbling around in the dark. The Minister appears to be unable to get off the starting blocks and there has been indecision and uncertainty about how the academy will proceed. Just one day before the bids close, the British academy of sport is as unclear as the hereafter is to mortals. We all have a different image of paradise and that is how it is with the academy—everyone has an idea, but nobody has co-ordinated those ideas.

The Government have spectacularly failed to supply the vision. Where have they laid out their view in any detail? Do they have a view of the details of the academy? The 56-page prospectus provokes more questions and concerns than it gives answers and reassurance. The sporting world is at a loss and is unsure whether any of the practical questions will be addressed. We all agree that we want an academy.

Ownership of the academy will be in the hands of a new consortium and its remit will include the need to search for commercial viability. Does that mean that the new owners will have to turn to running ad hoc fitness regimes for middle managers to make money or to other non-sporting events to earn the cash? Will we see the academy hosting wedding receptions, for example? Surely the academy should be run by sport for sport and sport alone.

One of the great unknown factors, which causes the most serious concerns, is who will pay the on-going revenue costs of running the academy. On a practical level, for example, who will pay for the young people to attend the academy on sponsorships? Will it be the academy itself or the governing body of the relevant sport? What will be the role of the young people's coaches? Will their personal coaches and mentors have a role to play? Who will pay the coaches and how will that be decided? What will be the role of local education authorities? Young people are the responsibility of the local education authority. Will the academy have the power to require athletes and sportsmen and women to break the link with their local or regional clubs or the power to decide which events they participate in? Who will have priority in selection? That is especially important because of the vast sums of money involved in some sports and the ability and desire of athletes to decide where they will take part. Who will make that choice?

The academy will, we are told, cover sports medicine, but we have had no clarification of how those medical services will be provided. Will the physiotherapy and pharmacy services be provided by the national health service or someone else? More important, what guarantee will there be that the home country sports councils will always co-operate with and participate in the financing of the academy? The royal charters give them independence, but what will happen if they choose to exercise that independence? In an article in The Times yesterday, David Miller wrote: Sir Rodney Walker, the chairman of the England Sports Council … has said … that if the England Sports Council does not approve of the choice of academy site by the UK body, it will not allocate the £100 million of National Lottery funds that has been set aside for it. Will the Minister comment on that statement? After we have been through the whole process, will someone, somewhere, decide that they have a veto over the money?

Incidentally, can the Minister tell us what the status of the English and the United Kingdom sports councils and their royal charters is at the moment? Why has the English Sports Council not met officially for a year? Why is it taking so long to get the financial memorandum sorted out? What confidence can we have in the future of the academy if the setting up of the UK Sports Council and its relationship with the other sports councils has still not been resolved? Surely we owe more to the new chief executive of the UK Sports Council, Howard Wells, and to the chairman, Sir Ian MacLaurin. They must be allowed to get on with the job and the problems must be sorted out quickly.

The academy should be a linchpin in a strategy for success in British sport, but it will not succeed unless there is a clear structure, from primary schools to clubs to the national level, with bodies identifying talent and pushing it on to the next stage. Were the school sports associations specifically asked to contribute? We all want success, but of course we do not need muddle. If we are to take the country with us on an expensive academy, there is no room for muddle. Everybody needs to be aware of just what the academy can do for the individual youngster, boy or girl, who has the potential to succeed. The public must know that the academy can do something for such young people. We need much more clarity on the subject.

A number of questions still have not been answered, but they are not new. The sports' governing bodies have been raising those questions with anyone and everyone for some time and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to answer them.

Will the Minister also clarify his role in the set-up? How will the national sports recreation centres fit into the new plans? Are they being sidelined in any way? Surely all those issues should have been agreed with the relevant governing bodies before the prospectus was issued. The UK Sports Council, the governing bodies and the British Olympic Association will be crucial whichever bid wins. What will be the involvement of those bodies and why has the Minister not been able to secure more agreement on the proposals before starting the bidding process?

Will governing bodies lose their grants for elite training or will they be free to send competitors to train in camps overseas if that best suits their needs? Elite sport sounds glamorous, but it comes from the grass roots. It is long term and expensive and there are no guarantees. Many of our great champions get to the top despite rather than because of the system. Some people are critical of giving money to the excellent. All of us who care about sport believe that we must have excellence at the top, but the pyramid must be as wide as possible at the bottom. I am not clear about how those links will be achieved.

The National Coaching Foundation should play a key role in the decisions on how the academy should be run. An article in the autumn edition of its newsletter was headed "Bricks and mortar, but too little vision?" It was critical of the fact that many of the proposals in the 56-page document are not clear. Bidders are not being given a clear direction in which to go. The Minister should explain how the details will work out in practice. We all want the academy to be established, but if bidders are not able to take account of the different factors, whoever wins will have to talk to sports bodies to ascertain the requirements of any particular sport. Much of that work could have been done already.

Even though the Minister has slightly changed his mind about the use of a huge green-field, 200-acre site for the academy, the 56 pages of that document were based on the premise that it would still be a green-field site. Does the Minister accept that consultations with the sports governing bodies showed that there was no support for a large green-field site for the academy? We already have centres of expertise. We need a pinnacle—an administrative and co-ordination centre—but it must be in touch with what is happening in the regions.

British sport wants success, but now more than ever it needs answers so that it can plan for the future. The Government have asked for bids, but their policy is not clear. Great interest was shown, but we will not know the final number of bidders until 12 o'clock tomorrow. Those bidders have been put in a difficult position, because they are being asked to provide the vision thing for the Government. The Minister should have made matters much clearer.

I have left the Minister time to reply to my questions. If he is honest, he will accept that, since the original announcement, despite the prompting of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), we have been unable to obtain clarification of the position. There has been no debate in the country. If the average person in the street were asked what he thought of the academy and what it was all about, he would have no idea how it relates to him and his local community, and how it will benefit local youngsters with sporting talents and abilities. I hope that the Minister will give me some answers, but perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) will say a few words first.

1.13 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) for that courtesy: I appreciate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who was in the Chamber a moment ago, has done a lot for sport.

I want to put down a marker on behalf of Sheffield—the city in which I was born, where I live and work, and which I represent. It has not had the difficulty to which the hon. Lady referred, although I appreciate that she argued her case in great detail.

Sheffield has produced a glossy prospectus, which states: The Sheffield-based Academy will provide all the facilities, the resources and the services necessary to achieve gold medal performances. The city's concentration on sport over the past few years has provided much of the services, the knowledge and the expertise required, along with much of the infrastructure. It would be wrong if I did not mention the fact that many people associate Sheffield with something that went on many years ago. However, Sheffield now has major sporting facilities, and, along with many other cities, has submitted a bid. I am sure that the Minister, with his expertise, will consider that when making his decision. I hope that the academy will not be London based, but be situated somewhere in the provinces.

1.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) for raising this important subject, and for allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) to say a few words. He has done tremendous work to promote Sheffield, especially with regard to sport, and I am grateful to him for the advice that he has given me in the past few months on a range of sporting issues. I look forward to seeing the bid from the city that he so ably represents.

On 14 July 1995, the Government published the policy document "Sport: Raising the Game", which sets out a wide range of proposals designed to rebuild the strength of every level of British sport. It highlighted three vital and linked elements of sports policy. The first was the need to restore sport and, particularly but not exclusively, competitive team games to the heart of school life. The second element was to extend the sporting culture by strengthening the two-way links between schools and local sports clubs. The final element was to ensure that talented competitors at every level received the support necessary to allow them to exploit their talents to the full—all the way to the Olympic podium.

We therefore proposed the establishment of a British academy of sport that would aim to offer the highest standards in the world in sports science, sports medicine, coaching and training facilities. Moreover, the academy would be the pinnacle of a regional network of centres of sporting excellence and academies for individual sports, which would offer more locally accessible, high-quality training facilities and support services.

We recognised that a world-class facility would not be cheap. However, the national lottery could provide the means for its achievement. The Prime Minister announced that up to £100 million of national lottery money could be available to help to fund the establishment of the academy.

Why are we doing this? The approach of other countries has become increasingly professional. They have chosen to provide the very best facilities for their athletes, and so should we. To date, our athletes have done well, and some have excelled. They have made the most of the facilities that are already available. We want to ensure that from now on our facilities are second to none. The aim of the academy will therefore be to help our athletes to compete with, and beat, the best in the test of the world.

A key factor in the development of the Government's proposals for the British academy of sport, and for the regional network of facilities, was the insight that I gained from my many conversations with sports administrators, governing bodies and athletes and, not least, from my visit to Australia in January 1995. I saw for myself the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, which provides valuable lessons for our British academy of sport. I also saw and studied the New South Wales State Institute at Narrabeen and the South Australia State Institute in Adelaide, both of which provide valuable lessons for our regional institutes of sport. I saw and studied the Australian cricket academy at Port Henley, near Adelaide, and the Rugby League academy inside, as it were, the New South Wales State Institute at Narrabeen, both of which provide valuable lessons on how academies of individual sports that are owned and run by the governing bodies for those sports might work in this country.

I do not want to copy everything that I saw in Australia, because the opportunities and problems there are different from those we have, but I pay tribute to what Australia has achieved. I have learnt a great deal from its excellent example.

The policy document recognised that much of what is needed to help our sportsmen and sportswomen to develop to the highest level of achievement and sporting excellence is already in place. However, it is clear that we lack a vital asset for all national sport—a British academy of sport of world-class standards, and a coherent and unified programme to allow those with the greatest talent to use that talent to best effect.

"Raising the Game" set out the Government's proposals. We want to ensure that the academy provides a range of services for sportsmen and sportswomen and, very importantly, their coaches—top-class training facilities; expert support services in sports science and sports medicine, including advice on training techniques, nutrition and sports injuries; good-quality accommodation for short or long-stay training camps or courses; financial support for individual athletes; access to local education facilities for long-stay students; personal development programmes; use of up-to-date laboratories; and advice and access to information using the latest audio-visual techniques. The academy will be a specialist centre for the training of coaches and those in the fields of sports science and sports medicine and also a centre of excellence in research and development.

The British academy of sport will work co-operatively with the regional institutes of sport and sports-specific academies, although such regional institutes will not be owned or run by those who will own and run the British academy of sport—or if that were to happen, I should be surprised. Of course, there is nothing to stop people attempting to do that, but at the moment we are inviting bids only for the academy.

The Government are not in the business of nationalising sport or overly centralising it. The regional institutes will offer locally accessible, high-quality sports training and facilities; high standards of sports science, medicine and coaching; links to the British academy of sport for sportsmen and sportswomen and their coaches; and scholarships and sponsorships for individual athletes.

The academies of particular sports—for example, the academy of cricket, the academy of rowing or the academy of cycling—will be run by the sport's governing body; provide coaching in technical skills in their particular sport at the highest level; make use, as appropriate, of the general facilities of the British academy of sport and the regional institutes; and offer scholarships and sponsorship for individual athletes.

In December 1995, the Sports Council conducted a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the academy with the United Kingdom's top performers, coaches and administrators, to ensure that what is put in place will have a direct impact on performance on the world stage. Written responses were invited and 12 open meetings were held in different parts of the UK. Some 1,600 people attended the open meetings and about 600 written responses were received. The responses were analysed by an independent consultancy firm and confirmed wide support for the concept, set out in "Raising the Game", of the academy as the pinnacle of a network of regional institutes and academies for particular sports.

In addition, there was overwhelming support for three key functions proposed for the academy: that it should be an integral part of the existing programme for the overall development of excellence in UK sport; that it should provide what is needed by different sports, their national governing bodies and their top-level performers; and that it should focus primarily, but not entirely, on the needs of top-level performers.

On 24 July this year, just over a year after "Raising the Game" was published, the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council jointly published the prospectus inviting bids to set up the British academy of sport. Tomorrow is the closing date for bids by different consortiums, typically comprising a couple of private sector companies, a local university, a local authority and a group of well-known sportsmen and sportswomen who might be the trustees of the charitable trust that will be set up to own and run the academy.

The prospectus is based on the proposals set out in "Raising the Game" and conclusions reached following the consultation process. It contains details of how to draw up a bid which may, at a later stage, be eligible for funding from the national lottery. The prospectus sets out a number of principles for the academy, including the following: that the successful consortium will form itself into a charitable trust, which will run the academy in the interests of British sport as a whole; that it shall have the highest standards in sports facilities and services, including training, coaching, sports medicine and sports science and other relevant matters; that it shall work closely with other sports organisations and, in particular, with the new United Kingdom Sports Council—which I hope will get off the ground as soon as the lawyers can work out the difficult details—with regional sports institutes, academies for individual sports and other bodies involved in sports-related matters; that it shall be run primarily, but not exclusively, for elite athletes, including athletes with disabilities; that it shall provide residential accommodation; and that it shall provide scholarships for athletes and encourage other bodies to provide scholarships for athletes at the academy.

What I intend to say next will answer many of the proper questions asked by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. Unfortunately, there will not be time to deal with all her questions, but if she so wishes I can respond to them in writing. The essential point about the prospectus is that it is not intended to be rigidly prescriptive about what the academy should be in every detail. It is our expectation—from what I have heard about a number of the bids, it is an expectation about to be fulfilled—that bidders will come forward with their own innovative ideas, adding value to the original concept, on how the principles I set out earlier can best be achieved.

The hon. Lady raised important matters, such as the arrangements with local schools for young athletes. For example, young girl gymnasts reach their prime earlier than other athletes, so they are likely to be at the academy at an early age and schools must be provided for them. Depending on where the winning bid is, the winning consortium will form relationships with local authorities, grant-maintained schools, independent schools or whatever. The precise details will depend on which consortium is declared the winner.

We are dealing with unsealed bids. It may be that a consortium that we do not think will win will actually have a good idea that, with general agreement, we will mix and match with another bid. I do not want to say what the academy will be in every detail. From what I know already about the bids, people will come forward with good, innovative ideas which I do not want to shut out. That is why the prospectus is not intended to be rigidly prescriptive.

The assessment process will be carried out by the new United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage. Once a decision has been reached, the successful organisation or a shortlist of organisations will be eligible to apply to the home country sports councils for funding from the national lottery. Because of the possibility of an application for lottery funding, the home country sports councils will play no part in the evaluation process.

Miss Hoey

I asked two specific questions which I would like the Minister to answer. The first relates to the charter of the home country sports councils. Is it possible that they will have a veto? Will the Minister talk us through how he thinks that will work? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman clarify his role? What is his job in all this?

Mr. Sproat

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the home country sports councils. The initial judgment on who we reckon is the best contender—there may be three contenders; it depends what happens with the lottery application—will be made by my Department and the United Kingdom Sports Council. The UK Sports Council, as the hon. Lady knows, has on its board the chairmen of all the home country sports councils, so their involvement and judgment are already involved. If I may mix metaphors, the process involves quite a fine Chinese wall, but I have every expectation that, given the fact that the British Olympic Association and each of the home country sports councils are represented on it, the UKSC recommendations will be generally acceptable to the sports world.

As for my role, much of the vision, such as it is, is my own—getting sport back into the heart of schools and recognising the importance of identifying talent at an early age and fostering it through primary and secondary school, at county and under-21 level—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. We shall now proceed to the next debate, on taxation of the racing industry.