Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
DAME
SUE STREET
DCB, LIZ NICHOLL
MBE, MR PETER
KEEN OBE,
MONDAY
6 FEBRUARY 2006
Sir John Bourn KCB, Comptroller
and Auditor General, National Audit Office, was in attendance.
Mr Marius Gallaher, Alternate
Treasury Officer of Accounts, HM Treasury, was in attendance.
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR
GENERAL
UK SPORT: SUPPORTING ELITE ATHLETES (HC
182)
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, welcome
to the Committee of Public Accounts where today we are looking
at UK Sport: Supporting elite athletes. We are joined by
witnesses from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Dame
Sue Street, who is the Permanent Secretary, and, from UK Sport,
Ms Liz Nicholl, who is Director of Performance and Acting Accounting
Officer and Mr Peter Keen, who is a Performance Adviser. Ms Nicholl,
what is your target for the Winter Olympics in terms of medals?
Ms Nicholl: For the Winter Olympics
we are targeting between two and three medals. We are funding
five disciplines in the Winter Olympics. Our targeting is always
based on medal potential and we should expect about 50% of those,
hopefully, to come in.
Q2 Chairman: And which disciplines
are they?
Ms Nicholl: The disciplines are
curling, women's bobsleigh, bob skeleton, skiing and one more—speed
skating.
Q3 Chairman: Nothing in alpine sports
then?
Ms Nicholl: We are not doing biathlon
but we are funding skiing.
Q4 Chairman: But you are not planning
to win anything.
Ms Nicholl: We are funding 14
athletes across those sports. Our best medal prospects are actually
in curling, either men's or women's, and in women's bobsleigh,
because women's bobsleigh are currently silver medallists at world
championship level.
Q5 Chairman: Just to go back to our
performance in recent Olympics, could you please look at paragraph
4.24 on page 37? Could you tell us what action you now expect
from athletics in the light of its disappointing performances
in recent years?
Ms Nicholl: In terms of athletics,
we have worked closely with athletics over the last 12 months.
In particular, there is a new performance director now in the
lead role in athletics who started last March. We required a new
performance plan from athletics for the period between now and
Beijing. That performance plan has been received. It has been
reviewed by partners in the performance environment and accepted
and is now being rolled out. There is a challenge in terms of
change in athletics as well, because they are reviewing athletics
in the UK. There is a new England Athletics; there is a new chief
executive of England Athletics; there is a new disability manager
in athletics, a whole host of changes over the last 12 months.
Fifteen per cent of the medals available in the Games are in athletics;
we absolutely need this sport to perform.
Q6 Chairman: You had a target of
seven at Athens, did you not, and you only won four and two of
those four were won by one person?
Ms Nicholl: Which is why the change
has been implemented since.
Q7 Chairman: Are you going to cut
funding for sports which won no medals at all at Athens?
Ms Nicholl: We already have reduced
funding for sports which had no medals at all in Athens. There
was a group of them.
Q8 Chairman: Six Olympic sports and
four Paralympic sports won no medals, is that right?
Ms Nicholl: Yes.
Q9 Chairman: Remind me which they
were?
Ms Nicholl: Judo, triathlon and
gymnastics won no medals. Taekwondo, weight lifting and shooting
won no medals on the Olympic side. Judo, triathlon and gymnastics
have had funding reductions and reductions in the number of athletes
who are funded. Taekwondo, weight-lifting and shooting have had
funding at a similar level but, again, reductions in the number
of athletes who are funded. All sports which under-performed in
Athens have felt that through the funding investment decisions
for Beijing.
Q10 Chairman: Do you think it is
a good idea to support athletes who are outside the top 10 in
the world?
Ms Nicholl: Our focus is on supporting
athletes who have the potential to bridge the gap to the podium
within a four-year cycle. They may be outside the top 10 in the
world now, but if within four years they can bridge the gap and
there is performance evidence to show that, then we shall fund
those athletes.
Q11 Chairman: If we look at figure
10 on page 23, we see that some countries give performance bonuses
to athletes. I am not suggesting that I am necessarily in favour
of that, but have you considered it?
Ms Nicholl: Yes, we have considered
it, and in fact we think there is a place for performance bonuses.
However, within the limited budget that we have available we feel
that that priority for us has to be to support athletes to get
within sight of the podium as opposed to rewarding them when they
get there. Our current athlete personal award scheme has a balance
of an increased amount when they are performing better, so there
is an incentive there within the current athlete personal award
scheme. A bonus scheme should be just that, a bonus. We think
it would best be supported through the commercial sector as opposed
to public funding and we have actually talked to the BOA about
talking a lead in this respect.
Q12 Chairman: Can we look please
at paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14 on page 30? This is looking at the
major championships leading up to the Olympics. Why did you overstate
your performance against target by including in your results medals
won in events not taken into account in setting the target? Is
this like comparing apples and pears?
Ms Nicholl: We accept the criticism
of the NAO Report and we apologise for the error. This is not
normal practice and this has not happened since this Report was
published. What happened here was that we had targets that were
collated in one part of the organisation, the performance directorate.
At that particular point, we also had results collated from a
research function. So both sets of figures were correct, but put
together, they presented an incorrect picture and that we have
corrected now in terms of procedures internally and full accountability
and responsibility lies within the performance directorate.
Q13 Chairman: Dame Sue, may I ask
you one question please? If you look at paragraphs 3.12 to 3.14
on pages 29 and 30, you will see there is some doubt about whether
UK Sport reports its performance fully and accurately. Why have
you not ensured that they do so?
Dame Sue Street: I also apologise
to the Committee. This was an error. It was exactly as the NAO
says, that medals won in events not covered by the targets were
wrongly included. We have a much fiercer regime now. We meet quarterly
and we have ensured that all the data is collected in one place,
is presented and is tabulated exactly according to the targets.
Q14 Chairman: Just one last question,
which perhaps Dame Sue you may want to answer on behalf of the
taxpayer or the lottery player. We are going to be spending £97
million on supporting elite athletes at Beijing, is that figure
right?
Dame Sue Street: Yes.
Ms Nicholl: Yes, it is.
Q15 Chairman: Are you aware of the
Olympic ideal, the words of Baron de Coubertin? What is it? It
is not winning, but taking part. Why are we concentrating resources
on a few elite athletes? Why not just help sport generally? It
is not winning, but taking part, surely.
Dame Sue Street: There is certainly
one view about public money, which is that you should invest with
the best chance of success. What this money does is enable those
with the best chance of success to take part with the best chance
of winning and, indeed, that is the main tenor of this Report,
that UK Sport needs to make some tough decisions in order to look
at where the money is best invested. I completely agree with those
who say, including this report, that medals are not the only yardstick
and we have to look at the potential. UK Sport now has responsibility
for talented athletes eight years away from the podium, so that
gives a longer view of those who should be taking part. In the
end, of course you have to make public money work for public value
and part of that is definitely the medals and that is what we
feel is in the public interest.
Q16 Chairman: May I put the same
question to you Ms Nicholl? The country which historically spent
most of its budget on trying to win medals was East Germany where
the quality of life for most citizens was absolutely dire. What
is in winning medals for the general public apart from prestige?
Why are we not spending more of this money on local swimming pools,
for instance?
Ms Nicholl: I would say that between
five and nine million people watched Kelly Holmes win a gold medal
and Steve Redgrave win a medal and why was there such a fantastic
impact when we won the Ashes and the Rugby World Cup? It really
does have a huge impact on people in this country in motivating
them to participate in sport and compete in sport. That is why
we do it. We like winners and that is what we are investing in
and success comes at a price.
Chairman: I thought you might say that,
but I thought it was worth asking anyway.
Q17 Mr Khan: It could be argued presumably
that Kelly Holmes inspired more people than Eddie the Eagle. May
I ask, in that context, why boxing is not listed here as one of
those sports which gets funding?
Ms Nicholl: Boxing was funded,
in that period, by Sport England. Boxing predominantly competes
at a home country level and there was an arrangement across the
sports councils that if a sport predominantly competed at home
country level, then the funding responsibility should remain at
home country level. From 1 April this year, we shall take on the
responsibility for boxing as well in the preparation for Beijing
and 2012.
Q18 Mr Khan: The Beijing cycle is
included.
Ms Nicholl: Yes.
Q19 Mr Khan: The NAO Report talks
about how other countries are funded, including Australia, which,
as you aware, is extremely successful when it comes to winning
medals. For example, have we looked at how the Australian Institute
of Sport works in Canberra and whether there are models to be
replicated here in the UK?
Ms Nicholl: Yes, we are very close
to the Australians. Several Australians who have had leading positions
in the Australian Institute network are now actually working in
the UK. So we have first-hand evidence of what has worked out
there, but, more importantly, we are also learning from what has
not worked in Australia.
| 
