House of Lords - Grassroots Sport and the European Union

Grassroots Sport and the European Union - European Union Committee Contents

CHAPTER 5: Effective and Representative Dialogue

92. Effective channels of dialogue are essential to ensure successful policy making and delivery at both EU and Member State level. First we examine dialogue across the different policy areas within the Commission which is important to ensure legislation does not unintentionally adversely impact upon sport. Second, we consider dialogue and communication between the Commission and stakeholders, including Member States. This is essential to ensure both that EU sports policy reflects the experiences and concerns of grassroots organisations and that grassroots organisations are aware of, and able to make use of, the opportunities the EU's competence offers them. Finally, we consider dialogue between grassroots sports organisations in different Member States which can make the delivery of sport more effective through the sharing of experience and best practice whilst also promoting the European dimension mentioned in the Treaty.

Mainstreaming within the Commission

93. We heard from a number of witnesses how sport is vulnerable to the unintended consequences of EU legislation in other policy areas. The Government told us that "too often the result has been that the impact on sport of planned or inadvertent policy change is not taken into account, or has to be mitigated at the last moment."[152] The Government and the Sport and Recreation Alliance provided us with examples of where this had taken place. These included regulations on the use of open water and working at height which would have impacted adversely on climbing and water sports.[153] The Government highlighted work they had commissioned to identify regulatory burdens in UK law which impacted upon sport. Areas being examined included regulations around training, health and safety, sports clubs, facilities and access, finance and taxation. The Minister agreed with the Committee's suggestion that such a review could usefully be undertaken of existing EU legislation.[154]

94. It is clearly preferable to identify potential problems upstream, before legislation is enacted. The Government described the limitations of a supporting competence in this respect: "one of the realities of Article 165 is that it does not create a full, formal, official harmonising and regulating competence for sport. The consequence of that is that the Sport Unit cannot use Article 165 to say to other bits of the Commission that they must take account of sport and their laws and regulations must be different."[155] However, the Government believed that the Commission's Sport Unit took the matter very seriously and that there was no lack of "ambition or appetite."[156] The Commission themselves highlighted impact assessment as the process specifically intended to address such issues.[157] Although this is an established practice, the Commission's view was that the new competence would enable them to use this process "more effectively."[158] Structured dialogue with stakeholders is also important in this process.

Dialogue with the Commission

95. Since the 2007 White Paper the Commission have committed to regular structured dialogue with sports stakeholders. Article 165 formalises this, making specific mention of developing the European dimension in sport by promoting "cooperation between bodies responsible for sports."[159] Different forms of dialogue are set out in Box 8. Many of our witnesses felt there was significant scope for improvement in the way these function, to enable them to deliver more effectively for grassroots sports.

BOX 8

Forms of Dialogue

EU Sport Forum

An annual gathering of sports stakeholders organised by the Commission and designed to promote broad debate and discussion on European sporting issues.

Thematic Dialogue

Discussions between the EU and sport stakeholders with a more limited number of participants on specific issues.

Bilateral Dialogue

Discussions between the Commission and individual sports bodies.

Social Dialogue

Discussions and potentially joint actions facilitated by the Commission but involving organisations representing the two sides of industry, namely employers and workers (clubs and athletes).

Expert Working Groups

There are currently 6 working groups divided by subject area. These are: sport and health, sport and economics, non-profit sport organisations, anti-doping, education and training in sport and social inclusion and equal opportunities in sport.

Other forms of dialogue

These include consultation conferences, consultation exercises and the Sport Unit's webpages.

96. Many of our witnesses felt that while dialogue functions well as far as it extends it is not fully representative of the whole spectrum of sport. The Sport and Recreation Alliance described the Sport Forum as being dominated by football organisations and "those with the most money at a European level." Whilst they also appreciated the difficulties faced by the Commission, for example in finding speakers who had understanding of sport in the EU context, they nevertheless felt that the Commission should be encouraged "to move away from the professionalisation and the footballisation at the European level and look at grassroots sport in particular."[160]

97. Emma McClarkin MEP, who represented the European Parliament's Culture and Education Committee at the first formal structured dialogue with sport stakeholders to be held under each presidency told us of a similar sense of a "lack of a real grassroots voice."[161] Whilst she acknowledged the difficulties the Commission faced she argued that a select group of "mainly football and Olympic organisations" lacked the requisite level of understanding of the practicalities of delivering grassroots sports.[162]

98. With regard to the working groups, the Government have a policy whereby they send experts in each field to represent the UK. This is an approach broadly welcomed by UK stakeholders as constructive although it is not the practice followed by all Member States.[163] Sport England, which represents the UK on the Health and Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunities working groups, felt this limited the effectiveness of the groups, since best use was not always made of the pool of expertise across the EU. They suggested that working to clarify the purpose and outcome of these groups would make it easier for Member States to identify the most appropriate representative.[164] Sport England also felt it would be "immensely powerful" if smaller local groups from different Member States could be brought in on an ad hoc basis to participate in the groups and share their insights. This might for example include groups which had particular expertise in areas such as how to increase participation amongst certain groups.[165]

99. The need to ensure that the right voices are heard means it is incumbent upon Member States to ensure that there is effective dialogue at a national level and that groups and organisations with relevant experience are provided with regular opportunities to feed into the process. The Minister drew attention to the EU Sports Stakeholder group which DCMS holds as part of this.[166]

100. However we heard worrying evidence that sportscotland, Sport Northern Ireland and Sport Wales, despite a desire to engage in the process, felt they had not been provided with opportunities to do so. The Minister acknowledged that this was not a satisfactory situation and was able to reassure us that dialogue was being re-opened with sports ministers from the devolved assemblies who would meet in a UK Sports Cabinet.[167] It would then be incumbent upon the relevant ministers in the devolved assemblies to seek input.

101. Whilst stressing that the working groups were constructive, Sport England suggested that improvements could be made to the way they functioned in order to make them "more focused on evidence, outcomes and intelligence." They felt the groups "rather than meeting periodically, often just collating what is there and circulating that," should be used to push forward understanding of outcomes and the evidence base, including commissioning and producing work where appropriate. The Sport and Recreation Alliance, which sits on the Non-Profit Sport Organisations Working Group, expressed similar views.[168]

Improving access to EU funding through communication

102. As discussed in the previous chapter, there are a number of EU funding streams open to grassroots sports projects. However, some of our witnesses expressed concern that the application process was too complex, particularly for small community organisations[169] and that it was difficult to access information about what was available.[170] Jane Ashworth, Chief Executive of StreetGames, described the obstacles to smaller grassroots projects applying for EU funding as "fear and ignorance."[171] The Commission appeared to be alive to these difficulties, telling us that "Brussels can appear to be a long way and is a long way away for a small organisation."[172] They highlighted the tension they faced in this respect between the desire to make the process simpler and the need to be fully accountable for the use of public money.[173]

103. On the other hand Keith Newman of the EU Sports Platform offered some encouragement, arguing that the process of applying for funding was in reality not "quite as archaic or as difficult as it may seem to someone who hasn't done it before or doesn't have such an understanding of the process." Mr Newman was also of the opinion that difficulties could be raised with the Commission, including through the Sport Forum which he described as a "very useful place for those kinds of questions and for those problems to be aired."[174] This suggested that perhaps the most pressing issue was that of communication.

104. Mary Honeyball MEP believed that better use should be made of the internet and that "a publicity and awareness-raising programme is needed."[175] The Commission explained how it considered that many of the difficulties were a result of the fact that sport was such a new competence. Greg Paulger explained that they hoped many of the current difficulties would be resolved if there were to be a full Sports Programme. This could then be accompanied by a communications infrastructure and simplified procedures, such as online tools, which would make funding more accessible to grassroots organisations.[176]

105. Member States also need to promote opportunities where they have networks in place. The Minister told us that the UK was currently considering how best to do this.[177] Mr Paulger suggested that there might be lessons which could be learnt from other policy areas. He provided the example of how the MEDIA programme, aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the European audiovisual industry, is promoted in the UK by means of a media desk, jointly funded by the UK and the Commission. Mr Paulger suggested that the Commission might consider proposing something similar in the case of a Sports Programme.[178]

106. Methods of assisting smaller organisations to apply for EU funding might also be considered a fruitful area for the sharing of best practice. For example, StreetGames described how it had been able to access funding through the Youth in Action programme due to the assistance of an outreach worker[179] whilst Sport Wales had run a workshop for organisations on how to access Leonardo funding.[180]

Dialogue between grassroots organisations

107. We detected significant enthusiasm for the development and strengthening of pan-European networks between grassroots sports organisations. This would both enable the sharing of best practice and address the difficulties identified in chapter 4 regarding fulfilment of the transnational requirement in any funding programme.

108. One possible solution we discussed with witnesses, not currently being considered in Brussels, was a web-based tool. This suggestion was initially put to us by sportscotland who use such a method to connect the schools network in Scotland, allowing them to share practice and improve communication. Stewart Harris, Chief Executive of sportscotland, considered this to be "very effective" and suggested that it "would be useful for the EU to consider something similar."[181]

109. The Minister stated that although he would not rule out the idea, he was "slightly nervous" of the suggestion. He expressed the view that webportals "normally end up costing a huge amount of money and, unless they are properly marketed, they sit there without the right sort of use."[182] However, the majority of our witnesses expressed a different view, seeing value in the proposal. A number highlighted the value that the internet was already delivering for grassroots sports as a medium for the sharing of best practice. For example StreetGames described the user statistics for their website which revealed surprisingly high viewing rates given the small size of the charity, something they attributed to the availability of case studies, briefing papers and best practice on their website.[183] The Football Foundation also described how other organisations seeking to learn from their model, including trans-nationally, had made use of a similar facility on their website.[184]

110. There was a widespread desire amongst our witnesses for the EU to build on such methods, widening the knowledge pool accessible to grassroots organisations across Europe.[185] Although acknowledging that web-based tools had resource implications and to be effective needed to be monitored and updated, Paul Thorogood, Chief Executive of the Football Foundation, was convinced that web-based tools were "clearly the way to distribute best practice ... technology is critical to this area."[186] Sport England told us "it would be an extremely useful resource and a catalyst for driving better evidence sharing"[187] whilst Emma McClarkin MEP described it as "a great idea" and believed it would be "a natural progression."[188]

111. Mr Paulger also saw value in the proposal and told us that if there were the means, the Commission would initiate it. He also suggested that lessons could be drawn from other policy areas where best practice is shared via a European portal which "is not a vertical web, old-fashioned website where you can only access written documents, but it is something that is interactive, a bit like YouTube where you can get in touch with volunteers or groups in other countries, directly."[189]

112. It is important to ensure that EU legislation and initiatives across the policy spectrum do not adversely affect sport. The Communication does not specifically address this aspect of mainstreaming, but we consider it vital to the effectiveness and success of sport in delivering policy objectives. The Commission should make full use of the impact assessment process to safeguard against unintended damage to sport and we urge vigilance on the part of both the Commission and the Government. We consider it probable the new competence will add weight to this. The Commission should, in consultation with stakeholders, conduct a full review of existing EU legislation with a view to identifying existing regulatory burdens on sport. Particular attention should be given to those impacting upon volunteers, as recommended in chapter 4.

113. The various forms of dialogue between the Commission and stakeholders need to ensure that grassroots sport is adequately represented. The Commission should monitor the extent to which structured dialogue, including attendance at the Sport Forum, is representative, and should take remedial action as necessary. Where expanding the range of stakeholders would make dialogue unwieldy, the Commission should facilitate an exchange of views with sport on a theme by theme basis.

114. Member States should be encouraged to seek the views of all relevant stakeholders. The DCMS EU Sport Stakeholder Group is a good example of this. However, we find it surprising that Sport England is represented whilst Sport Northern Ireland, sportscotland and Sport Wales are not. We recommend they be invited to join the stakeholder group.

115. Witnesses were critical of the composition and functioning of the working groups, although they acknowledged their potential. The Commission should encourage Member States to give proper consideration to the most appropriate organisations or individuals to sit on the working groups. The participation of smaller specialist groups should also be encouraged on an ad hoc basis.

116. Further thought should be given to a more strategic and joined up approach to the different forms of dialogue between stakeholders and the Commission, for example using the Sport Forum as a medium to disseminate the findings and conclusions of the working groups to a wider audience.

117. We agree with witnesses that fulfilling the potential of the new Treaty competence relies on communication and inclusion. Many grassroots sports organisations have a limited awareness of Brussels, and of the funding opportunities available. We recommend that both the Government and the Commission give thought to how they can individually and jointly publicise the opportunities at EU level which are open to grassroots sports, including funding, opportunities for the sharing of best practice and dialogue with the Commission.

118. We recommend that the Commission establish a European webportal to facilitate the sharing of best practice and the formation of pan-European links between grassroots sports organisations. Although we acknowledge the Minister's point regarding the need for it to be adequately publicised we consider there is sufficient evidence that such a tool would be welcomed by stakeholders, it would provide genuine EU added value, ensure accessibility by engaging grassroots sports at all levels and offer good value for money.

152 GSEU 9 Back

153 Q10, GSEU 38 Back

154 Q 234. The UK Review was published on 22 March 2011 and highlighted EU data protection and aviation legislation as areas of concern. Back

155 Q 249 Back

156 Q 250 Back

157 Every EU proposal should be subject to an impact assessment, which is checked by the Commission's own Impact Assessment Board. For further information see European Union Committee, 4th Report (2009-10): Impact Assessments in the EU: Room for Improvement? (HL Paper 61) Back

158 Q 207 Back

159 TFEU Article 165 (2) Back

160 Q 33 Back

161 Q 148 Back

162 Q 149 Back

163 Q 260 Back