Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
DAME
SUE STREET
DCB, LIZ NICHOLL
MBE, MR PETER
KEEN OBE,
MONDAY
6 FEBRUARY 2006
Q120 Mr Khan: We can understand the
reasons why the negotiations are taking place and the reasons
for the lack of certainty at the moment, but may I take you once
again to the Australian experience? It says in the Report on page
46 "In the early 1990s the Australian Institute of Sport
targeted its resources on eight sports which were considered to
have the greatest potential to win medals at the Sydney Olympic
Games in 2000". They were not necessarily looking at the
figures, but have we identified half a dozen or a dozen sports
where we are likely to have the most success in 2012?
Ms Nicholl: We have three groups
of sports: one is the sports which are multi-medallist and are
achieving at a significant level. Our aim would be to support
them to sustain their current level of medal delivery. So sailing,
rowing, cycling may be able to push up one or two but our aim
would be to make sure they sustain their current level at least
in 2012. We have another group of sports which could do better
and should do better: athletics, swimming, judo, shooting, multi-medallist
sports. Our aim would be to work with them in terms of supporting
them in their areas of weakness and making sure they have all
the support to achieve their full potential. Then we have the
small sports, where there is a small number of athletes with medal
potential. We shall keep our Beijing investment strategy to 2012,
so we are very well placed to know exactly how we shall allocate
funding through to 2012 as soon as funding is received.
Q121 Mr Khan: Is that happening now?
Ms Nicholl: We have an investment
strategy now which will be extended to 2012 as soon as resources
are known; we know exactly how we shall apply that to 2012.
Q122 Mr Khan: It says in the Report
that you are hoping to raise £4 million from sponsorship.
How confident are you of being able to do that and do you have
the necessary skills to do that?
Ms Nicholl: That target was in
our business plan in early 2005; our 2005-09 business plan. It
was there because there was a gap in our resources which we required
to be at the optimum level we felt we needed for Beijing. We had
no other means of accessing that funding, so we set ourselves
a target of seeking some commercial income to support that. In
order to test the feasibility of that we actually had some work
done to help us produce a sponsorship strategy. The advice from
the result of that was that UK Sport is not in the best position
to be the agency which manages sponsorship directly because the
delivery of benefits to sponsors has to happen out there in the
field of play, in the governing bodies, in the British Olympic
Association, in the British Paralympic Association. There was
also of an issue of us then being in competition with key partners
in terms of delivery of success. We have now removed the £4
million requirement in our business plan. We have reprioritised
our work in order to be able to not be dependent on it, so any
sponsorship income is a bonus and we are now working with governing
bodies to bring benefits in kind to their programmes.
Q123 Mr Khan: So your budget is £4
million smaller.
Ms Nicholl: The budget across
the organisation is £4 million smaller.
Q124 Greg Clark: I am surprised at
that answer. You have scrapped the £4 million target for
sponsorship, but is it not the case that the Netherlands managed
to raise nearly £20 million over the last cycle?
Ms Nicholl: Yes.
Q125 Greg Clark: As far as I can
see the Netherlands did not come in the top 15 in the medals table.
Ms Nicholl: Yes.
Q126 Greg Clark: So why is it possible
for them to raise five times as much as originally planned for
us and we have to scrap it?
Ms Nicholl: The agency which is
referred to as having raised that funding was also the National
Olympic Committee for the Netherlands. They have a much broader
remit than UK Sport has and the equivalent sponsorship income
for the BOA in 2004 was £5 million with about £10 million
income. It is entirely feasible that BOA can raise funds and it
does. It is entirely feasible that the British Paralympic Association
can raise sponsorship income and it does. It is entirely feasible
that governing bodies can raise sponsorship income and they do.
We are not actually comparing like with like.
Q127 Greg Clark: I must say that
there is a thicket of bodies here. If the Netherlands can get
into elite sports I wonder why we cannot. Earlier you were talking
about your objective for 2012 and I am afraid I am none the wiser
as to what the objective of UK Sport is for 2012. Could you take
the opportunity just to state it very quickly and succinctly?
Ms Nicholl: Our objective for
2012 is to play our part in supporting delivery of a successful
London Games but also the most successful Olympic and Paralympic
Team GB ever. It is on that basis that we have made submissions
through the DCMS to ministers for consideration for funding.
Q128 Greg Clark: So no part of your
objective is a certain position in the medals table, a certain
number of medals.
Ms Nicholl: Our approach to targeting
is to identify the true cost of supporting a world-class athlete
and how many athletes would need support. The target is resource
dependent.
Q129 Greg Clark: I find it very bewildering.
Ms Nicholl: There are several
targets. What I am saying is that we came tenth in Sydney; we
are targeting moving towards the top eight in Beijing and we shall
all aspire to do better than that in 2012. Is "better than
that" seventh, sixth, fifth, fourth? Realistically we could
not break into the top three in the world. We shall confirm our
target when the resources are confirmed.
Q130 Greg Clark: It says in the Report,
it says on your website, it says in your annual report for 2004
that your objective is to be number five in the world by 2012
and now you come here and say a lot of warm words but that crunchy
bit has disappeared. It does strike me as emblematic of this hearing
that you are an organisation which is run by targets, you allocate
funding by targets, you impose targets on sometimes reluctant
sports' governing bodies yet, when invited to have clear and crisp
objective, aim, target, whatever you want to call it, for the
most important set of Games in this country in 2012, you do not
have one. It just seems to me rather inconsistent.
Ms Nicholl: May I explain the
context of Beijing? If we had not had £98 million to invest
in Olympic and Paralympic sport in the period leading up to Beijing
we should not have been targeting what we are targeting for Beijing.
It would be irresponsible to set a target for 2012 until we know
the funding which is available.
Q131 Greg Clark: But you already
did. You said you want to be number five in the world.
Ms Nicholl: Aspirations are moving
towards the top five in the world. You are asking whether we have
set a firm target for 2012 and the answer is no, it is absolutely
resource dependent.
Q132 Mr Bacon: I was not going to
ask this question, but in light of your last answer, can we take
it that the recent speech by the Chancellor on `Britishness' is
going to be something you can use in your negotiations with the
Treasury?
Ms Nicholl: Yes. If the Committee
have any other suggestions, that would be very helpful.
Dame Sue Street: It is fair to
distinguish between a longer-term aim as described in the Report
and a final set target. Most people would accept that is better
developed when we have seen how we do in Beijing.
Q133 Mr Bacon: Of course, but nonetheless
will you accept that people would expect the funding approach
to be slightly different in quality perhaps as well as quantity
because the Olympics are in London than if they had been taking
place in 2012 in Paris or in Madrid. Is that fair?
Dame Sue Street: That is a matter
for ministers.
Q134 Mr Bacon: It is a matter for
ministers, but you would not be surprised that most people expected
that.
Dame Sue Street: I should not
be surprised at all.
Q135 Mr Bacon: It is correct, is
it not, that UK Sport is responsible for drug testing?
Ms Nicholl: Yes, it is.
Q136 Mr Bacon: So you fund and prepare
elite athletes and you are also responsible for running all the
UK's drug testing.
Ms Nicholl: Yes.
Q137 Mr Bacon: In most other sectors,
whether water or gas or electricity or financial services, this
would be thought extremely odd, would it not, that the people
doing the regulating and scrutineering are also the people doing
the preparing and promoting. It would be like asking Barclays
Bank—not that I have anything against that fine institution;
they used to employ me—any major high street bank or building
society to regulate itself rather than having the Financial Services
Authority doing it, would it not? Why are you responsible for
drug testing?
Ms Nicholl: This is a question
which has been raised on a number of occasions. A number of independent
reports have looked at this issue and each time they have concluded
that there is no rationale for moving the anti-doping function
out of UK Sport. UK Sport has a target for medals, yes, but we
want to win medals and we want to win medals fairly. We are absolutely
committed to anti-doping, absolutely committed. We are recognised
by WADA as an example of good practice in athlete education and
testing and we also recently, in order to allay the perceptions
which are there of a potential for conflict, introduced an independent
scrutiny committee which will scrutinise UK Sport's operation
to ensure that there is absolutely no conflict between our two
functions. The report of that scrutiny committee will be available
publicly.
Q138 Mr Bacon: Is it correct that
Michele Verroken is still UK Sport's head of drug-free sport?
Ms Nicholl: No, that is not correct.
Q139 Mr Bacon: Who is the head now?
Ms Nicholl: The director is John
Scott.
| 
