House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence

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 bodies[1].

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 effectiveness 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 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 Office, 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 contribution[2]. The study has been invaluable in raising awareness and the profile of sport and recreation in Home Office thinking, and helping NGBs to recognise their own (often taken-for-granted) contribution to this important area of government policy.

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 offers a 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 Officers' Forum and NGBs modernisation project:

CCPR has been operating a Forum for NGB Education and Training Officers 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 difficulties in securing timely and transparent information from one funding organisation.):

— 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 effects 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 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 Sheffield 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 enjoyment[4]. 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 Office 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 effective for all such clubs. CCPR therefore worked intensively with its legal advisers on charity law, DCMS, the Charity Commission and the Home Office 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 Office and Richard Caborn in DCMS, was a further factor in this success. The Home Office process of involvement of the organisations most likely to be affected 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 Office, 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, affect 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 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, affecting 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 effects 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 difficulties. 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.

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 NMW legislation to the work of volunteer coaches. Following a straw poll among members, CCPR found that the issue was beginning to affect a number of NGBs and their clubs. A scoping paper was produced on the potential unintended consequences of application of NMW to volunteering, with expert advice from Deloitte, and sent to the NMW Unit 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 NMW Unit 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!

(d) Security Industries Act:

CCPR's concern has been to support the efforts of DCMS and the Football Licensing Authority and several member organisations, notably the Football Association and Rugby Football League, to prevent Home Office action to ensure training which may be appropriate for (eg) nightclub security staff, 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 effort 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 offered 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 effects 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 effective as more investment in preventive measures and education and training. Post-Soham, however, is almost certainly not the time for rational review of the effectiveness of this system.

(h) Learning and Skills Council priority objectives:

CCPR is concerned, as are voluntary organisations like NACVS, about the detrimental effects 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 officers are trained and updated. This is an issue which particularly affects volunteer leaders and coaches, since the NGBs, employers and managers of 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 effects 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 Office to investigate the impact of risk and insurance on voluntary sector sport and recreation. The outcome has been a report to the Home Office, with a recommendation that the consultation should be extended to the whole range of factors which put 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 Office 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 effects. 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 effective 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 effective 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.

See ww.ccpr.org.uk/dyncat.cfm?catid=15049

This would also help to affirm 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 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 offered 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 offering strong programmes which are accessible and relevant to all members of the community.

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 different 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 sufficiently radical, yet long term enough for lasting effect; 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 offer a superb opportunity to influence the choices and engagement of half our young people. While the TASS scheme offers 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 Office 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 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 Rights[5], 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 effect 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 effective 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 effect, and increase their effectiveness 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 funding[6], 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 officers 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 families[7]. 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 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 staff 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 effectively 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 afford 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 offer 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 offered 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.

(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 affecting participation, eg vocational/professional qualifications and their funding (affects UKCC but soon will affect 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 Office consultation on the effects of risk and insurance on sport and recreation should be extended to cover the effects 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 Office, 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

1 For more information, see www.ccpr.org.uk or telephone CCPR on 020 7854 8500, or E mail admin@ccpr.org.uk Back

2 Geoff Nichols (2003) Active Citizenship: the role of voluntary sector sport and recreation London, CCPR; available from the publications section on www.ccpr.org.uk Back

3 See publications section of www.ccpr.org.uk Back

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. Back

5 Voluntary Code on Television Rights, CCPR available from publications section of www.ccpr.org.uk Back

6 All central government sources including Lottery. Data from Sport England, provided by McKinseys. Back

7 See Chris Gratton (2004) report to UK Sport on the economic benefits of international sports events. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2005	Prepared 19 May 2005