Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 2022

Social Outcome Contracts in Irish Sport: Discussion

I believe everybody is well settled and has had an opportunity to get their breath again. Our guests, witnesses and those joining us in the Gallery are all very welcome today. I have received apologies from Deputies Fitzpatrick and Munster and Senator Cassells.

I welcome our guests. We have representatives from Rethink Ireland, the FAI, UEFA and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, to discuss social outcome contracts in Irish sport. As I outlined, this meeting has been convened in committee room 1 with representatives from those organisations, whom I sincerely and warmly welcome on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Liam McGroarty, strategy manager with UEFA, is very welcome. From the FAI, I welcome Mr. David Courell, chief operating officer, and Mr. Ger McDermott, director of grassroots football. I also welcome Rethink Ireland's chief executive officer, Ms Deirdre Mortell, who is joined by her colleague, Mr. Mario Vottero, who joins us via Microsoft Teams. Finally, I welcome UNESCO chair manager, Ms Catherine Carty. I think we have included everybody. Our guests are very welcome.

We are getting used to doing things in person again, which is great. Some of our colleagues may join us from their offices via Microsoft Teams so witnesses may see some people on the screens or some may be here in person. We have a speaking rota and, obviously, the Dáil and Seanad are sitting so people will come and go. It is no disrespect to the witnesses or their presentations; it is just how things happen in Leinster House. Everything happens back-to-back. The witnesses should not take any offence when people leave or anything like that; it is probably because another meeting is happening. As I said, people will come in during the meeting as well so pass no remarks, as they say in Cavan.

I have a little bit of housekeeping to go through around Covid-19 and stuff like so I ask everyone to bear with me. The format of the meeting today is that I will invite all of our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, which are limited to three minutes. These will be followed by questions from my committee colleagues. As witnesses are probably aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on its website. To limit the risk of the spread of Covid-19, the service encourages all Members, visitors and witnesses to continue to wear face masks in crowded settings on the campus.

Before I ask our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I will explain some limitations regarding parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references they may make to other persons in evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or of those who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. There are also witnesses who may be giving evidence remotely from outside the parliamentary precincts, however, and as such may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present. Such witnesses may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise, comment on or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House to participate in the public meeting. I ask members who are contributing via Microsoft Teams to identify themselves when contributing for the benefit of the Debates Office staff preparing the Official Report and to mute their microphone when not contributing to reduce background noise.

I ask everyone to ensure their mobile telephones are on silent, in airplane mode or switched off, whichever they prefer.

I welcome Deputy Andrews, who is joining us today, and Deputy MacSharry, who will be joining us later this afternoon.

I invite Mr. McGroarty to make his opening statement on behalf of UEFA and the FAI.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirleach. Tá áthas orm seans a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. UEFA has engaged academics, econometricians and industry experts to quantify in financial terms the value of amateur football in more than 40 countries. The UEFA social return on investment, SROI, model assesses 30 different social, health and education outcomes by gender, age and frequency of participation. To date, the model has been freely shared with other sports, including Irish rugby, Finnish basketball, football and floorball, and European badminton. It has received endorsements from the UN, WHO, the Council of Europe and the EU as the best evaluation tool in sport today.

Being able to quantify in financial terms the impact of physical activity in a very granular way means it is possible to put values on very specific outcomes for specific cohorts of people. It opens the door for private investors to invest in social outcomes. This financial instrument is called a social outcome contract, SOC. Since 2019, the European Investment Bank, EIB, has been investing in SOCs. Upon assessing the UEFA SROI model, the EIB has committed to testing the feasibility of a SOC in sport in two member nations.

A SOC is the reverse of grant funding that is awarded based on outputs written in a grant application and scored by a committee or individual. A SOC begins with identifying a social issue that needs an innovative solution. Funding is secured from the private sector. If the desired outcomes are achieved, only then does the public sector pay the agreed rate. The private investor bears all the risk. There has been significant investment in sport at national and local level over recent decades, but the same hard-to-reach target groups remain inactive. Most sports are designed from a sporting perspective, with athlete development and competition structures receiving the bulk of human and financial investment at local and national levels.

Sport, by default, delivers on many social outcomes. However, it is not common to see sport designed specifically with social outcomes as the primary objective and the primary focus of funding or investment. It is more difficult for clubs from disadvantaged areas to access grant funding. A SOC provides the expertise and opportunities to address this deficit. I will give an example. Bright Star Boxing Academy in the UK was formed in 2016. It was staffed by three volunteers and affected 80 children. In 2020, it benefited from a SOC, receiving £150,000 of capital to deliver on four social outcomes. Today, it has 13 full-time employees, operates four sites and affects more than 400 children. It has a turnover of more than £500,000 and it generates profits.

In Ireland, the national sports policy rightly divides sport into competitive and recreational sport. The policy speaks about deepening evidence and knowledge on the value of

sport. It expresses the intention to develop investment evaluation models tailored to the Irish context and to collaborate beyond the sporting sector. The values that underpin its vision are that funding needs to be based on outcomes, and monitoring and evaluation is critical to that. Achieving the ambitions of the policy will require estimated funding of €220 million annually by 2027, which is double what was provided in 2017. A multi-annual funding commitment is advised and the policy also recognises the need to secure additional private investment.

SOCs are completely in line with the sports policy. Three developments can attest to this alignment. First, the FAI and the IRFU have applied the world's best social impact tool in sport in this country. Second, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage has committed to collaborate with sport and pay for social outcomes in two local authorities on a pilot basis. Third, Rethink Ireland can generate the private investment to set up a pilot SOC in sport today.

To finish, I will describe in concrete terms what a SOC in sport could look like. The annual cost of treating type 2 diabetes in this country is €6,600 per adult. Science shows there is a 50% reduction in the disease in people who are physically active. Let us say there are 20 adults in a community who have been assessed by their GP as being prediabetic. If a qualified coach is contracted to provide six hours of sport per week for these people, 66% of them will not become diabetic, which will save the State €30,000 per year. The coach will earn €10,000 that he or she did not get before and the club will receive money for renting its facilities. The State will save at least €10,000 as a consequence of the provision of this single health benefit for a tiny group that is currently under-represented in sport.

I thank Mr. McGroarty for his insightful contribution. I am sure my colleagues will have lots of questions for him in due course. The next speaker is Ms Carty.

Ms Catherine Carty

Investment in sport for development is a growing marketplace that is showing remarkable returns across social, educational, health, well-being and economic domains. Growing evidence of the powerful impact of sport-based investment makes sport a core development tool, an enabler of the UN's sustainable development goals and a strong proposition for enabling societies to build back better after the Covid-19 crisis. Investment outcomes are evidenced from data built from the bottom up, that is, from local implementation in grassroots sport. Thanks to innovative financing strategies, outcomes data can now create scalable, inter-sectoral and inter-agency funding opportunities, stimulating real opportunities at the grassroots level.

Through its new global alliance, Fit for Life, UNESCO is creating innovative opportunities for newcomers to realise this full investment potential. Fit for Life is a world-class international consortium that researches the impact of sport participation while growing its data bank of research. It delivers robust SROI data to create low-risk, outcomes-based investment opportunities to scale up funding in this area. Central to the Fit for Life programme are SOCs, which offer potential partners, such as development banks, an effective, measurable framework to build capacity and promote sustainable development.

SOCs represent a powerful new vision for sport investment and a win-win-win proposition for investors. SOC data accurately predict the multi-sectoral cost savings of a sports-based implementation. This risk-averse approach allows governments and investors to pay only for outcomes recorded and verified independently. Early adopters, including governments, development banks and philanthropic organisations, are already tapping into this market, piloting proof-of-concept SOCs, building local data and preparing to scale up their investment. The most advanced of UNESCO's SOC projects is a partnership with the Development Bank of Latin America, CAF. UEFA's chair at Munster Technological University, MTU, is collaborating with CAF on this pilot initiative. This SOC targets the priority areas of disability, equal access and inclusion in physical activity.

Ireland is well-positioned to become a champion in outcomes-based investments in sport for development by partnering with UNESCO and Fit for Life. UNESCO and Fit for Life invite interested investors to support project development and scale up and pilot their own social outcomes contracts. Contracts are flexible and developed based on critical outcomes relevant to the ministries overseeing sport, health, finance, education, inclusion and many other areas.

Ireland's national sports policy core values align entirely with this outcomes-based investment approach. Both are evidence-led and outcomes-focused. Both prioritise monitoring, evaluation and accountability, promote inclusion and seek to foster collaboration within and beyond the sports sector. Partnering with Fit for Life is an ideal way for Ireland to advance national objectives using a win-win-win investment approach at the cutting edge of sport for development.

I thank Ms Carty. Ms Mortell will speak now on behalf of Rethink Ireland.

Ms Deirdre Mortell

Rethink Ireland was created by the Government to stimulate philanthropy coming out of the recession. We bring together philanthropy raised from multinational and indigenous companies, private donors, families and anywhere else we can think of, together with Government funds, to tackle Ireland's critical social and environmental issues. We do that through providing grants and, critically, capacity-building supports to non-profit organisations, some of which are charities and some of which are not, at grassroots level around Ireland where they have developed an innovation that tackles a critical social or environmental issue. We have raised €85 million in the last seven years to do that. We have backed over 300 projects to grow in scale across the country. We have a significant track record as Rethink Ireland in public-private partnerships.

We are also a trusted partner of the Government, having been established by it - although we are independent. We are a non-profit and a charity ourselves. Our Government funding tends to come - through the Dormant Accounts Fund - from the Department of Rural and Community Development, with which we work very closely. We also work with other Departments, however. Really, we see our role as supporting Departments to solve their policy implementation challenges where backing innovation at grassroots level can help do so.

In 2021, the European Investment Bank, EIB, advisory hub agreed to fund a social outcomes contract feasibility study with the Government. The client is the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, with Rethink Ireland facilitating this. The main purpose is to assess the potential for the take-up of social outcomes contracts in Ireland. It is divided into two phases. Phase 1 is complete, which is an overview and assessment, and phase 2 is just about to start, which is an outline for a specific pilot project, which is why we are here to talk to the committee today. We can learn so much from other countries. What I mean by that is we do not have to invent this wheel. As an example, there have been 227 social outcomes contracts in the world that have raised more than €500 million. We are currently finalising that pilot. We know there is limited public-private collaboration in this country and this has the potential to unleash it.

Most importantly, what can we do? We have experience in Rethink Ireland in supporting social innovation in sports. We are a partner on the feasibility study and a trusted partner of both Government and philanthropy. The kinds of outcomes we can look forward to are improved health and wellness physically, improved self-image and confidence emotionally, and participation, friendships and community and civic engagement in terms of social outcomes, all of which we need to see much more. If we keep doing the same things, we are going to get the same results. This is an opportunity to break out and try something different based on international learning and the capacity we have across these organisations in this country.

I thank Ms Mortell. I thank all our guests for their very comprehensive presentations to the committee today. I will now invite my colleagues to come in. I welcome Deputies Griffin and Dillon who have also joined us. We will begin with Deputy Mythen, who has five minutes. The floor is his.

I thank our guests for coming. in. It is nice to see them all. It makes sense that we expand our thinking on the benefits and power of sport. We all know the power of sport is phenomenal. It has a real impact on different individuals in communities and their well-being, as well as playing a social justice role with social outcomes contracts. For instance, we had the campaign to stamp out racism in sport, which is very good.

In terms of measurements and metrics, how are social outcomes monitored? I have a fear about the smaller clubs. How do they get a look in? Is there a mechanism or do the witnesses' organisations have experts to go through the system with the people who are involved? I find it is very often so cumbersome and complicated. Most of these people are volunteers and do not have that support. Supplying that is vital. That is the first question.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I can take that question. The first part was about the measurements and metrics we use. We follow the UN sustainable development goals, SDGs, and the indicators developed by the UN on the goals relating to sport. We follow a very standardised approach. There are approximately 30 different metrics. The academics and econometricians who sit behind the model are the best in the world in terms of the best way to do this. It is not easy because most econometricians look for causality - if one does A then B happens. That is very had to prove so they have come up with a method of doing that, which we have shared with UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the UN and so on.

The Deputy's second point, which was really good, was about small clubs that might be run by volunteers and how they measure their impact. They barely have time to make registrations up for players etc. We have cascaded this model right down to a club level. In Finland, 600 clubs are using this system. The data is pulled from the national system. For all the athletes who are on national systems in Finland, that data is pulled through application programming interfaces, APIs, so that when a club secretary logs on, all the players and coaches from that club are already in the system. They can add in new elements like the cost of electricity or of a physiotherapist, or if there is an over-45s walking group or an over-60s football group. They can add additional elements.

The idea is that the tool is designed for local use. Today in Ireland, local football clubs are using it. A local sports partnership, LSP, is starting to use it, as are rugby clubs. It is absolutely right that it has to be used at the local level. They are the people who deliver the outcomes and they are the ones who should be the recipients of the investment.

I thank Mr. McGroarty. Any of the witnesses can answer this question. Do we have a mechanism or proofing system that ensures we do not support private investment for social outcomes contracts from companies with vested interests? A fast-food entity, for example, could be accepted as a sports social outcomes contract investor. What way is that funding done? Can the witnesses tell me more about the management of Government funding and grants? I would like more detail on how that works and how we ensure value for public money.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I can begin and Ms Curran might jump in on the question on ethics in private investment and whether there is a way to scrutinise private investors to see if they are legitimate and if they genuinely care. It is normally a blended form of investment so there will be a philanthropic investor and then a private investor. Once the philanthropic or social investor is connected to it, ethics is built into it because they want to see the outcomes. They are not there to make money.

Big Society Capital is the biggest investor in the UK. It comes from The Big Issue. It wants to make its money. It wants to make its 4%, 5% or 6% but it actually invests in building the capacities at a local club level. The actual investors get invested in the outcomes as well. I do not think there is a regulatory body above but Ms Curran might correct me on that. I do not think there is a regulatory body.

I might jump back on the Government funding and grants question. I am not clear on exactly what the Deputy's question was.

It was about the management of Government funding and grants. I would like more detail on how it actually works and how UEFA gets value for public funding.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

In a social outcomes contract instrument. Okay. To begin with, we must put a value on the outcomes. If it is treating type 2 diabetes, what does that cost the State? We come up with a system to put a price on either children leaving school early or who are not involved in sport or adults who are not involved in lifelong sport. We come up with a financial value for that. That financial value is checked with the Minister concerned. The Minister for Education will say he or she agrees that the price we have for that outcome is reflective of what the Department sees, and an agreement is made on what is called a rate card.

A contract is developed to establish what amount should be paid back if a club makes an impact on two outcomes and 20 people. It is like a normal contract with terms and conditions relating to when it is paid back and how to verify that this has happened. We believe Ireland's role would be very much about managing the contracts in order that everybody is in agreement on the rates, when they should get the money back and on what conditions they get it back. Some get money back based on 60% of the outcome being achieved and others when 100% is achieved. It is very much managed by an authority outside of the parties. We believe Ireland could be the independent authority that manages the contracts and the financial transactions.

Ms Deirdre Mortell

I will take an example from the UK. Mr. McGroarty referred to Big Society Capital, which is the main funder of social outcomes contracts in the UK. It comes out of the Government although it is independent. It is similar to Rethink Ireland. It has had 22 social outcomes contracts in the past ten years that generated €1.418 billion in value. The benefit to cost ratio was 10:1. This means that every pound spent by the UK commissioners to generate social value generated £10 worth of value. This is how the economics or cost-benefit analysis works.

To take it down to the grassroots, what Rethink Ireland does is manage the contracts between all of the various stakeholders, including the Government funder that only pays if the outcome is achieved, the investors who put in the money upfront and take the risk, the delivery partner, which could be a football club, sports club or athletics club that does the hard work, and an independent verifier. It is not as though a football club just states it has achieved the outcome. There is an independent verifier, trusted by all parties, to state that the football club did so, which the investors, the Government and ourselves believe. The independent verifier stating this means the outcomes are met and the Government should pay. If the outcomes are not met, the Government does not have to pay. This is the risk the investors take.

The problem it solves for Government is that it is very difficult for to invest in the future because budgets are annual in nature. This makes it very difficult to state something will save money five years down the line. The investors take the risk and the Government only has to pay if the outcomes are achieved. This is the problem it solves in terms of releasing more money.

I welcome our guests, including Mr. Courell who is a fellow Mayo man. I wish him the very best of luck in his new role with the FAI. A social outcomes contract is a new concept for me. I am learning a lot as we go through today's session. I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and briefing material. Mr. McGroarty said social outcomes contracts provide the expertise to address the under-represented segments of society. Will he tease out how this is aligned with the national sports policy? He also highlighted that the FAI has applied a world-best impact evaluation model. How was the model derived? What does it entail?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

With regard to social outcomes contracts and under-represented groups, private investors will look for the best possible return. I will take as an example O'Devaney Gardens in Dublin. It is a tough area that would not be as good at applying for grants as Malahide. There is a different clientele with different connections and networks. A social outcomes contract would go into O'Devaney Gardens to see what it could effect very quickly in terms of increasing physical activity for various segments in society. They might look at men aged over 60 and decide they want to make sure they are physically more active than they are at present. The social outcomes contract operates best in an under-represented area because there is more return for the investor. The traditional grant system is not as effective in such an area because it does not have the wherewithal to make the grant application or the support services. This is why it would be effective in such an area.

To go back to the question on the FAI and the IRFU applying the best model, UEFA designed the model over the past four years using many academics and a huge amount of literature from around the world. The FAI took all of this data. We got all of the information on health metrics, education metrics and unemployment. We applied these to the generic model, as was done in rugby. UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the UN and the EU have assessed the model as the best in the world. There is nothing like it. It is applied in the Irish context using Irish data and GDP. This is why we say it is the best model applied in the Irish context.

I thank Mr. McGroarty. Is there a dedicated resource in the FAI that evaluates this on an island basis to best understand where social outcomes contract can be implemented in each area to raise the profile of the sport? Is this what we are speaking about? Is this where Rethink Ireland comes in? Does it support various types of projects to ensure there is private investment if it is required or philanthropy?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

Football is pushing the agenda but there is no commitment to any sport. A social outcomes contract is for all sports. It is not only for Ireland, it is global. We work with UNESCO. From a UEFA perspective, we feel a bit of a responsibility to all sports because we have the wherewithal to work on this. I have shared this with the GAA, rugby and Sport Ireland. They all have access to the model. The intention of a social outcomes contract is to effect a social outcome. Whatever sport does it, be it athletics, basketball or boxing, is perfectly fine. It does not matter which sport does it. The investors will want the best sport to achieve the best outcome because they want to get their money back. It is more about the social outcome than the sport. The right answer in one part of the country might be football. It might be cricket in another. It will depend very much on the outcome. It is definitely not football specific.

My next question is for Ms Carty. What are the characteristics that make Ireland one of the most well-positioned countries to champion this? What makes Ireland unique in this situation?

Ms Catherine Carty

With regard to the inclusive agenda the Deputy referred to, Ireland holds the UNESCO chair that has global responsibility for implementing UNESCO's inclusive policy actions in sport. Since the sustainable development goals came on the scene in 2015 we have been very engaged and involved with UNESCO on the agenda of no one being left behind. This has been a policy priority throughout UNESCO, the WHO and in other areas. The Irish Pavilion at the World Expo hosted an event on this topic in January during sustainable development goals week. We brought together all of the global stakeholders in this, including UEFA, UN agencies and other multilateral organisations and those involved in sport and sport development, to advance the agenda. It was probably the most collective meeting of this group of experts. It very much defined where UNESCO and other lead agencies globally believe this should be taken.

Ireland is well positioned. We have been on this agenda for a number of years. We have a very strong international reputation on inclusive policy actions and their implementation at a policy level and with regard to building grassroots capacity, including to address the needs of volunteers as was mentioned earlier. We are very strong on this. The national policy objectives very much align with this in terms of the inclusive agenda, monitoring, the unique framework, the unique partnerships and bringing in other stakeholders beyond sport into the agenda. We are very well positioned to deliver.

The international activity that has taken place with an Irish stamp on it has been very well recognised abroad and has been a great opportunity.

Mr. McGroarty and Ms Mortell have given examples of how that has been implemented nationally. As we look for new financial instruments, this is one that can give assurance. At a Government level, it is almost zero risk. It is an appealing area. We lead the inclusive policy actions from a global perspective and this is a good opportunity for us.

Great. It was mentioned previously that a pilot SOC would be implemented. Is that a reality? Is it being worked on actively?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

Finland has piloted the first SOC. It is overseen by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Finland changed its law a few years ago and children must now stay in school until they are 18. It changed from 16 to 18. The change did not go down well with young people and they started to leave school en masse. Basketball, floorball and football were used to keep children in school longer and the sports get paid based on retention levels in schools. The other example being developed is in Romania. It will not be part of the EIB initiative, but the Romanian federation is undertaking one on well-being and health for women. Historically, women have been excluded from physical activity in Romania. A pilot is being undertaken to explore how to engage more women and girls in sport using a SOC.

Ms Deirdre Mortell

Regarding Irish readiness for a pilot, this has been the purpose of the feasibility study funded by the EIB here. The first phase is complete. It was found that there is a demand for philanthropy to move into this space and a demand from the Government to move into outcomes-driven funding. We have gone that far. The second phase is just about to start. This will explore how we can design a pilot SOC in Ireland and where we should do it. All the arrows are pointing at sport.

I thank Deputy Dillon. I call Deputy Griffin.

The pilot could be based on who wins the all-Ireland this year. That might be a way to decide. I thank the witnesses for coming in. I appreciate their time and efforts. I will be quick because other speakers wish to contribute. Regarding the sports capital programme, which is a major programme of funding for sport, do the witnesses believe there is a role for what they are trying to achieve in that context? Is there scope to incorporate the SOC principle into the sports capital programme? Notably, the most recent programme is being reviewed. Will the witnesses’ organisations be feeding input regarding the workings of the programme into that process? Would that be helpful?

One of the biggest scourges in sport in Ireland now is the involvement of gambling and gambling money. Is there scope to help there through the use of this model? Is there enough leeway in the national sports policy to incorporate what the witnesses are trying to do?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I will start off again, if it is okay with the group. There is a role in respect of the sports capital programme. As Deputy Griffin will probably know better than I do, the biggest challenge is getting the 10% to 30% of local funding to access some of the sports capital funding. A SOC could perhaps be the way to address that deficit. Returning to the earlier point about under-represented groups, it is hard for some communities to access the sports capital programme. This initiative could be a way to help those groups to access it and to achieve a more even spread around the country. I was not clear on the query concerning the challenges in respect of gambling. I was not sure about that question. The Deputy’s final point was on-----

The national sports policy.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I have read the policy several times. There is much commonality with it. It begins by talking about the impact and evaluation tools we must design to see if we are getting bang for our buck and if this is the right way to invest in sport. The national sports policy aims to increase the percentage of people physically active to 50%. That has stagnated and the percentage has decreased. This was partly because of the impact of Covid-19, but the national governing bodies, NGBs, also need to do more. We must do much more at the local level. This initiative is giving private investors an opportunity to invest in sport and to give local clubs more capacity. People are the biggest challenge in our sports. We are extremely reliant on volunteers. They are greatly important but we must structure more support around volunteers to enable clubs to connect with under-represented groups.

What I was getting at in my question on gambling was whether the SOC model could be a way of replacing that money. Many sports are extremely dependent on gambling money. It is certainly not an ideal situation. I refer to the impacts on broader society as well, which we will not go into here. Is the SOC initiative an opportunity in this context? Are we on to something here in respect of how we can get rid of the dependency on gambling?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I am not too sure if it can be an antidote to the gambling aspect. What this model can do is to allow the commercial sector to be more involved in grassroots sport and corporate social responsibility, CSR, than brand recognition and a focus on eyeballs etc. It can allow the big sponsors to invest in social outcomes, as opposed to advertising their products. It could be the same for gambling but I am not quite sure if it is the solution for the challenges related to gambling and sport.

Ms Catherine Carty

I will address some of these points as well. I thank the Deputy for the questions. Concerning his comment on the sports capital programme, there is an analogy here with where the development banks' programming was at several years ago. They are very interested stakeholders in the SOC model. Development banks and their initial funding model used to focus on infrastructural development in developing countries, but that has now changed and broadened. Those development banks now recognise the need to change how they finance initiatives. They want to go more into a programming space, given the developments in recent years.

Regarding the sports capital programme, which has been extremely successful and changed the availability of facilities across the country, a diversity of input into the programming component would also be very welcome. We hear this a great deal from the marginalised population groups. While the infrastructure may be in place for access to sport, those groups have specifically stated that the barriers they experience are often not overcome by the addition of infrastructural developments. Therefore, linking into the social outcomes would be a strong addition to the sports capital programme. Returning to the example of the development banks, and the context where they used to invest just in the capital aspect of projects, those institutions are now investing in programmes alongside capital investment to address things like equality, diversity, marginalisation, human rights and all those areas.

Turning to the Deputy’s mention of gambling, one of the issues regarding the social outcome contracts and the link Mr. McGroarty mentioned to the sustainable development goals and indicators is that integrity, good governance, better governance and new standards in sport are all part and parcel of the delivery of the social outcome contract. In essence, therefore, the initiative should hopefully elevate all aspects of sports from participation to inclusion, but also the governance and integrity side. Even from volunteers' point of view, contact with and reach into that domain will change how people perceive their responsibilities and roles in sport and, hopefully, make it possible to address the gambling issue through that route.

On the national sports policy, there is mention in the current action plan from 2022 to 2024 of the role of MTU’s UNESCO chair as a critical stakeholder in reflecting the importance of international work in measuring the contribution of sport to the UN's sustainable development goals. It assigns responsibility, alongside the Department, to MTU's UNESCO chair and demonstrates interest in this two-year period alongside that. As Mr. McGroarty said, the SOCs are entirely aligned with the UN sustainable development agenda, which in turn is entirely aligned with a human rights-based approach that is designed to touch on marginalised population groups and how they may access and experience sport nationally.

Is Deputy Griffin finished?

We try to give people as much time as they need. I go now to Deputy Andrews, if he has questions.

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. Like Deputy Dillon, this initiative is new to me and it certainly seems interesting. On the companies aspect, and Deputy Mythen referred to this point, and concerning those involved in the drinks or gambling industries, will they invest? Would that not be a conflict of interest? Would there be concern regarding the role of such companies in particular projects? Mention was also made that the Minister has committed to collaborating with sport and to pay for two SOCs in two local authorities.

What will that look like? Which are the two local authorities? How will it work itself out?

With regard to SOC, will that work through an NGB, such as the cricket NGB, the FAI or whatever, or will it work directly with the particular group? Also, there was reference to applying for grants and grant funding. There are disadvantaged areas that struggle to do that. Is there a concern that the big three in Irish sport will have an advantage over the smaller NGBs spread across the country?

Ms Deirdre Mortell

On the first question about who the investors are and whether there is an integrity or ethics issue, and another Deputy raised that too, that is very simply a case of designing that into the pilot. If Rethink Ireland is the one managing the pilot, we will be designing that in. Our vision is of a more just, equal and sustainable Ireland because of social innovation and we will not be participating in any pilot SOC that cuts across that. It will be up to us to raise the investment so we will be looking at who the potential investors are and how we can screen for vested interests or any conflicts of interest. That is a pretty straightforward process. It is a design issue. Part of what we are saying in the next phase of the EIB is: how do we design that pilot and what are the key issues? Clearly that is one of the issues that must go on the table in that design.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

On the question about the Minister's commitment to test two pilots in two local authorities, there is no more detail on that. He understood the concept right away and understood that it is new funding going in at local authority level to a sports entity. What is clear is that it will not go to a NGB. It is very much focused on the club that is delivering the service. The club is the service provider and the contract will be with the club to deliver on the social outcomes. Mr. Courell will speak about it, but there will be some onus on the NGB to be sure that the capacities are there at the club, be it the coaches or the governance. The NGB's role is to make sure that is correct.

Mr. David Courell

I thank the members for the invitation to join the committee today. Before I respond to the question, I appreciate I did not have an opening statement but I wish to frame the FAI's representation here today. As mentioned by our partners, this is available to all sports should it be piloted. The context is that UEFA is leading from the front and we are sitting here, shoulder to shoulder, in support of this because we genuinely believe it is an innovative concept that could deliver multitudes of value across the landscape, not just for soccer but for all codes around the country.

In response to Deputy Andrews's question about the delivery model, as Mr. McGroarty said, it is not intended to be direct to NGBs. This is intended to go straight to the sharp end of delivery where it is needed most and where it can have the most impact. It will be the clubs that would apply through some sort of process that it is hoped Rethink Ireland or another body would run, and they would be either awarded that money directly or potentially via LSPs to deliver on the ground. That would then bolster that team of volunteers who we all know, and Deputy Mythen mentioned this earlier, are under a lot of strain. They would be bolstered with administrative capacity to deliver on these programmes effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

That answers the question about the big three. It is definitely not designed for the big three, but for which sport would have the biggest impact on a certain social outcome in a certain demographic. That could be boxing, cricket, volleyball or any sport.

Ms Catherine Carty

To add to that point, I gave the example in Chile. UEFA is very heavily involved in that example as is UNESCO. It is paralympics sport we are working through to deliver the sporting opportunities and they will be across a range of sports in that context. The partnership is broader than that.

On the point about the ethics, there is some guidance established internationally. We do a lot of work with the WHO. Ms Mortell alluded to it, but one can establish broad criteria such as no work with arms and tobacco companies, which would typically be WHO's main standard. Those types of standards can be put in place for anything that operates in Ireland.

I also mentioned the Fit for Life initiative that UNESCO is using to promote this approach internationally. By becoming a part of that initiative, Ireland has the opportunity to garner the expertise from other SOCs that are operational around the world, leverage that expertise and contribute to it. As was mentioned previously, there is a lot of Irish contribution into the development internationally. Learning from others, being a part of a global movement in this area and garnering the expertise are on the table.

There is also linking to initiatives. We mentioned inter-agency collaboration and cross-departmental collaboration. There are projects we are examining at present in terms of their capacity to deliver on this, and perhaps beyond grassroots sport to physical activity opportunities to be active. We are currently developing a project looking at people with enduring mental illness, particularly schizophrenia bipolar condition. We know from some pilot work that was conducted that the readmission rates to hospital for people engaging even in small amounts of physical activity show quite a return on investment for that type of activity. We are looking across the range from getting people active to various different types of sport engagement for this type of thing. By getting on board this initiative and this novel financial instrument, which is taking a hold internationally, we can benefit from that expertise and bring that to hold in Ireland to address some of the challenges we have had over the years in sport.

I want to follow up on something Deputy Andrews asked. Mr. Courell, you talked about the clubs. I will take the example of a small soccer club in a very rural part of the country. You said that this would put the supports in place. Clubs and their volunteers are very hard pressed to have the administrative staff for putting an application form together. When you said that support will be put in place, how does that manifest itself in practical terms?

Mr. David Courell

My understanding of the delivery model is that the funding would go to supporting roles that would be dropped into respective pilots.

That would come from the fund itself.

Mr. David Courell

Yes, that would come from the fund. It is effectively creating job opportunities as well, which is another benefit of this solution. It may not be full-time; it might only be ten hours per week. If those individuals do not already have the appropriate skills, they will have to liaise via the NGB, be that in cricket, rugby or soccer in this example, to get the relevant qualifications to then be able to engage the cohort that is being targeted. I hope that answers your question.

It does. I wanted to figure out how it will work. Is Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan ready to speak or will I continue to our colleagues?

Yes, go to our colleagues as I have just arrived at the meeting. I will speak later.

I call Senator Blaney.

Thank you for accommodating me today, Chairman. I am particularly pleased to be here for this presentation. I welcome the deputation. I also welcome a former director in the FAI, Mr. John Byrne. It is fair to say that when Mr. Byrne was an employee of the FAI he had the ear of every party in the House. There was a great relationship with the FAI when he was there and I acknowledge his presence today as well.

This is a great initiative and I thank the witnesses for their presentations. Everyone here is aware of philanthropy that is willing to engage in something like this. Mr. McGroarty gave figures when he spoke about the 20 individuals and the savings to the State. That is probably across not just health, which is massive in itself, but also education outcomes, improvements in justice and improvements in society and communities, and helping build communities. This is a really smart initiative.

I commend the witnesses on it. Based on their figures, if this was to be rolled out as they would like throughout the country or even a county, are there any projections of the savings that would be made? Mr. McGroarty mentioned an LSP that has just taken it on. Maybe it is too early to ask but will he have figures for that LSP concerning the outcomes there? It is important we see on the ground how this will happen.

Where does it go from here? It is important, as an Oireachtas, that we make something like this work. Being from Donegal and being involved over the years in many clubs and applications for sports capital, I noted that the clubs that had the smartest individuals filling application forms are the ones that did best. That is not really a proper outcome of delivering funding. This is a much smarter approach and more geared to those who need it most. I particularly like that idea, so well done.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

We have not scaled this up throughout the country as to what the savings would be, but in the national sports policy, on health alone it estimates there is a €1.5 billion cost to the State arising from the physical inactivity levels of the country. That is one metric and if other elements are added and employment opportunities are created through sports clubs to deliver services, the economy is added to and money is taken away from the social budget for people requiring social services and help from the State. It is new in sport. There is only one SOC in sport in the world today and that is in the UK. Financially, it is a huge success. It has achieved all its outcomes. The investors received all their money back. There are 17 different payers. There are 13 local authorities, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Sport England. They pay these 17 clubs for the services. They have saved the state £1 million in 18 months. They are doing four different social outcomes. We need to test the concept, keep it small and see how we can make it work in Ireland, learning from Finland, Chile, Romania and, it is hoped, the Netherlands. We will learn as we go. It is quite new and we possibly have a lot to learn. Having Rethink Ireland, which is very advanced and expert in this space, is a great benefit. Where we go from here is a baby step. We should just test it and take it from there.

It is important that all Senators and Deputies are kept abreast of this because it is a smart programme and sells itself. It is important everybody is kept abreast of the metrics as the programme moves forward. The quicker this can be rolled out, the better.

I welcome the delegation and acknowledge this forward thinking or rethinking. It is good to see representatives from Rethinking Ireland here as well. When we talk about sport in Ireland, we look at all the positives at local level. We are fortunate. We have GAA pitches, we have had a successful sports capital programme down the decades, and the physical structure is quite good compared with different countries. We are playing catch-up with countries like France which invests €40 billion of Government and private funding in its sports facilities.

I would like to get the witnesses' thought on access. Invariably, when a club leads on an application, there are criteria in the application saying the facilities will be used within the community and accessed by all the community, but in some instances that does not happen. I do not mean sports facilities per se. I am talking about schools as well. Every new primary or secondary school built now has a gymnasium. What percentage of them are closed at 3 p.m.or 4 p.m.? What sort of forward thinking has gone into the area of physical activity, nutrition and the curriculum, especially in light of the new leaving certificate programme where physical education is on the curriculum in many schools on a pilot basis? That eventually will be rolled out nationally. Since Covid, primary school children are in the yard much more during break time and even class time in some instances. The value of physical education has never been more accepted as an important factor in a child's development, not just in a sporting sense.

The first thing to accept is we need more investment. Even though we have a good standard and infrastructure to an extent, we can go further, especially when we look at a lot of municipal facilities in the North. If you go to a GAA tournament or cross the Border from Lifford into Strabane, there are many communal sports facilities there. Whether it is athletics, soccer, Gaelic games or rugby, there is a sharing of facilities. How will this model incorporate that vision and take access into consideration, including access for all sports to shared facilities, as well as gender and age inclusivity?

I recently hit the half century. Senator Blaney and I used to kick lumps out of each other on a football pitch between Glenree and Whitestrand. When we hit the ripe old age of 30 or the early 30s, we all gave up sport. We talk about health, longevity and people's improving health standards. How many people have been active sportspeople and eventually get to a stage where they are not active anymore?

How does the model look at access, age and gender inclusivity or is it left to the clubs? Is it hands-off? Is it just a mechanism, a construct and a way of attracting private investment? Is it just looking at those criteria, or is part of the model about encouraging access and inclusivity? No doubt Ms Carty and Ms Mortell's organisations would be into that in terms of their philosophy. I especially acknowledge the work UEFA and the FAI do in trying to bring boys and girls along at a grassroots level and not just a national level. I was in Georgia last week and they look at our infrastructure with envy. UEFA and the FAI's umbrella, focus and national and international vision are helping to lift countries up. I acknowledge that and Mr. McGroarty's work through the FAI and UEFA down the years.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I will start off with a couple of answers and then Ms Carty will come in on the question about inclusion, which is very important. I was always glad I was playing on Senator Blaney's team, as opposed to Deputy McHugh's team that kept kicking lumps out of people.

We have the same evidence about the facility. A little boy or girl in Moscow competes with 80,000 other boys and girls for a place on the football pitch. A little boy or girl in Mayo competes with 1,200. We have analysed the football facilities across Europe and we punch above our weight. The investment by the State in facilities has been fantastic. Facilities are not the big challenge. At the heart of it, as Deputy Mythen and the Chair mentioned, is that at the club level we are reliant on volunteers. An SOC allows us to professionalise a workforce that will support volunteers to do more and better.

That is one point on access.

The second point is on the Bright Star Boxing Academy in England. Their biggest learning was that the boxing club was not close enough to the kid who needed it. The way we have designed our facilities today is that they are often outside of the town. A developer will have bought the inner city area and built a block of flats. Now, the elderly and young people who live there cannot access a facility because it is two or three miles away. The under-represented people will not go looking for that physical activity. We have to bring it to them. The biggest investment by the boxing club was in buses. They were able to bus the children from the disadvantaged areas and make sure they got to the boxing club. Access is about more people who are a bit more professional and who can administer, promote and encourage physical activity for lifelong engagement. As the Deputy said, the way sport is designed today is we want to get the best people as quickly as possible and everybody else does the best they can. We need to design it for our elderly people. We are becoming more elderly. We are living healthier lives for longer. We need that physical activity. The second point is about buses.

On the other piece about data and evidence, and the national sports policy speaks about this, we are not capturing enough data and evidence to say what is impactful and makes more people be physically active. We have to be better at how we capture data by using better technology and social media to track who is using our facilities. There are a great number of facilities today that are lying empty for most of the hours in the day when the elderly could be using them. Schools could open their grounds on the weekends, and so on. That point is around data and usage. Monitoring insights on that would be good too. Perhaps Ms Carty might like to speak on the inclusion piece.

Ms Catherine Carty

On the inclusion piece, there have been gradients in participation in Ireland over the years. There has been some improvement in that, but it is by no means at a level we would like. We are in the process of concluding a project with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, where we had discussions with a wide range of marginalised population groups on their access to sport in Ireland. We are not at the stage where that access is anywhere near where it needs to be across disability, ethnic minorities, Traveller populations, low-income groups and a range of population groups who experience marginalisation. There is a lot of work to be done in that.

There is a human capacity gap here. Mr. McGroarty mentioned professionalising the workforce. We would welcome that as well. There is a new policy due out, it is hoped imminently, on education for sustainable development. That approach, which aligns with the SDG indicators Mr. McGroarty mentioned, and given the SOC is built around that data, will change how those working in the sector in Ireland can embrace inclusion. At the moment, much of the work we do to ensure the workforce, or even the volunteers, can work with marginalised populations is based on a cohort of people in that sector who have not really dealt in their pre-vocational training with working with marginalised populations. The approach of education for sustainable development, which is a new policy emerging from the Department of Education and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science will address this.

We have also developed a programme that is free and available for volunteers and sports clubs around the community to address this competence within the staff and volunteers who work with them. It is called TRUST: Sport as it should be - fun, fair, clean, safe, equitable and accessible. That is available to support those staff who want to know how they can include someone with a disability or how they can ensure their sport offer is available throughout the life course at all levels. That is something we want to do.

The Fit for Life programme, which I mentioned, is by UNESCO, is about health, sport and education partnerships. Again, that brings together the expertise that is needed to address these inequalities. Inequality is at the forefront of that development. It is one of the main principles of the sustainable development agenda, which means leaving no one behind. It is a case of building that capacity and that we cannot really say we are developing if we are continuing to leave people behind and leaving people out of the loop. It is a policy priority of that agenda globally that has been embraced on the international level and, indeed, in the Irish national policy that seeks to address inclusion gradients and access gradients. It is one that needs work, but addressing that capacity within those who emerge from programmes and courses that equip people to work in the sports sector is where we need to fill that so that we no longer retrofit inclusion and rather arm people with the competence to deal with it.

People going into work in the sports sector sometimes tell us they do not feel confident or competent to include beyond what was traditionally a mainstream population. They feel a little lost. It is a matter of building that competence and confidence to enable people, everyone from a volunteer to someone emerging from a university programme, to be competent and to feel happy to work with these population groups. When they do that, it is a positive experience. It impacts positively on the organisation, on the individual and on the families of people who have disabilities or others who feel themselves marginalised. As Mr. McGroarty said, reaching out to those communities is something that came through strongly from the work we did with IHREC recently on the TRUST project. They are not going to come to you. Sports clubs throughout the country say they are open for everyone, but until the perception is there among these population groups that they are genuinely open for everyone and have something to offer, they will not rock up to their sports offer on a Saturday morning and expect to be included. They need to go to where these people are and invite them.

Another issue is social values and social outcome. The social component of that sport engagement is critically important for this population group. It is what enables them to integrate into their communities and to feel involved and welcome. They need to be involved and welcome at all levels, not just as a player or participant, but in making decisions within the club, being on the board and getting involved at all levels. They are some of the outcomes that can be built into this. The impact of that extends from their involvement in sports participation into their willingness to engage with education, with the rest of their community, with the workforce and with other aspects. It has a huge multiplier effect. That is the value of that social outcome.

The Fit for Life initiative and engagement with that will help to bring those tools to the grassroots organisations and to the policy level in Ireland to enable us to look at how best to mobilise this nationally. That would be a good way to go.

I feel we are all going to be leaving this meeting with a Donegal accent.

You could have a worse one.

Exactly, you could have a Cork accent. I took time to read the opening statements. I apologise for missing the initial opening statements. It was unavoidable but I did read them. I apologise if I am asking questions that have already been asked.

Certainly, it strikes me, as a project and idea, as something we can really get behind. It is our job to dig deep and find out if there are any potential negatives or issues. Listening to Ms Carty on the inclusivity piece and how advantageous that can be, it is hard to find any. One question we have to ask and which may have already been asked is whether the witnesses believe it is ethical for private investors essentially to be able to make a return and make money from socially disadvantaged areas or from people who find themselves in disadvantaged positions?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I can start and then Ms Mortell can come in as well. It is a very good question regarding the ethics of private investors making money on disadvantage. The positive is that, without that private investment, it would be the status quo. People would not get advantage. They would not get the benefit. I mentioned a little earlier too that there is a blended format. It is not just private equity investors looking for their return. Many of the investors are social investors who genuinely care about the outcomes, and there is philanthropic funding as well. There is a mixture of funding. At the end of the day, because new money is being offered for new outcomes for people who currently do not get those outcomes through the sports sector, you will have an easier conscience with the private investor making a bit of money.

Ms Deirdre Mortell

I have two answers to that. In the first one, and I am sort of repeating what Mr. McGroarty just said, is it ethical that people do not have access at the moment? I would turn the question round. That would be my first answer. On the second, looking at inclusion in sports and at social outcomes, it has been very difficult to target funding there in a way that is effective and impactful in Ireland.

There are a couple of reasons. One of them is that sport is not a charitable objective and therefore the deployment of philanthropy, in particular, into sport at local level has been limited. I do not want to say there are no cases where this has happened. Of course, we all know where there are cases. However, if we look at other countries, the scale of deployment of philanthropy into sport at club level is nowhere compared to a number of other countries. The way we see it, this is another tool in the toolbox of how to get finance into inclusive sports at local level. Whether they are marginalised communities, people who do not typically participate in sports or whatever other type of marginalised group it is, we need more tools in our toolbox and this is one of them.

There is no guarantee that this would happen, but what has happened a number of times in other countries is that for pilots in particular, it is social investors rather than commercials who come to the table. An example would be from the UK, where it has often been existing foundations that have endowments and are investing their endowments anyway for a return in order to make grants out of those endowments. They are looking for that 5% or 10% or whatever it is that year, so why would they not divert that from some kind of an asset fund into a social investment? They are still getting the investment, but they are putting their mission on the line. There are times when that kind of diversion is quite effective.

I am very conscious of time as I am running out of it. I appreciate that. In fairness, that is a very satisfactory answer to what could have been a tricky question.

Mr. McGroarty mentioned that with this project, sometimes it is hard to make policy now for what will bring long-term benefits and savings, particularly in relation to health and well-being. He mentioned a figure of overall savings. Could he give perhaps a more practical example, someone with perhaps an individual illness and the savings per person by a scheme like this and investing in grassroots sport like this?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

There are 30 different metrics in the social return on investment, SROI, model. It can be divided by gender, age, the type of activity and the frequency of activity. It is possible to put a financial value on 30 different metrics that we have. For example, if it is an elderly lady who will develop osteoporosis, we know that if that lady starts to be more physically active, she will increase bone activity, she will decrease hypertension and so on. We can then look at the health sector and cost of treating osteoporosis. The intervention we put in place, the contact we put in place with the private investor, the rate of returns and so on, will be much less than the cost to the State. We can individualise it on age, gender and specific health or social outcomes. We can it do it in Ireland and 40 other countries. I hope that answers the question.

It answers it 100%. That is it. This investment saves long term. Whether it is on an individual scale or the grander scale, it saves in potential health costs down the line, which is certainly one of the main pluses of a scheme such as this.

Mr. McGroarty outlined very well the inclusivity part of it. He spoke about the outcomes from the perspectives of mental health, general health and social inclusion, etc. Even from the perspective of sports results, we can see the results of investment in grassroots sport in terms of performance down the line. We have, obviously, the sports capital grant. We had a fantastic allocation this year. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, and the Department for what was welcome and very well received. Having said that, I still often think it is almost like a loaves and fishes exercise. If a group with a very high-level, excellent, multipurpose, multisport project, which is trying to cater for many different needs across gender, ability etc., is begging for scraps, it may have to scale that project way down. Because this is coming from private investors who get a return on it, could it be a way of improving investment significantly in grassroots sport and achieving better outcomes in terms of the project that is delivered?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

That would be the ultimate goal. There has to be investment at the high end. It is right that our sports invest to be competitive and win medals on the world stage, as sports should. That is the right thing to do. However, in every country, the investment is always very heavily weighted towards those outcomes, and that is okay. The social outcome contract, SOC, is bringing in new investment for the purpose of developing the grassroots so that there is a much wider base and it is affecting more people. That will have an effect on high performance at a later stage and will increase performances. However, that is not the goal. The primary goal is that more people will be able to access sport in a way that will affect their health, education and employment outcomes. It will affect them on a much different level. It is new investment specifically for that outcome. The sports club is then designed to do that, as opposed to just doing it by default, and it is measured to do that. We are measuring the coaches, the dressing rooms and whether these places are better and more accessible for people because of the way this sport is designed.

It is my turn and I will have to be brief. To be fair to all the members, I think everything has been explored to a very positive outcome.

I have two quick questions. We have heard time and again at this committee how girls fall out of sports at a particular age, often at 14 or 15. I think that is broadly the case across many sports. We are haemorrhaging young girls who are finished with sports. Has that been considered as one of the social outcomes from the SOC that Mr. McGroarty and UEFA are endeavouring to deliver?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

We have not gone down to the detail of which outcome we would look for. It absolutely should be considered. It is probably the biggest inequality in sport. We are bridging the gap, but probably not fast enough.

This would be a good way to address that.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

Absolutely, and especially to get women back into sport again. Girls drop off a little later than boys do. Boys drop off earlier but they come back quicker, whereas girls and women do not get a chance to come back because of the way our clubs are structured. We do not put on programmes for them and - Ms Carty spoke on this better than me - they are not kind of welcomed in the way they should be as well. The gender gap has to be addressed.

I wish to offer a suggestion. There are a lot of positive outcomes and potential with what Mr. McGroarty is suggesting. I was going to suggest that perhaps at another time, after the summer recess, we might invite him back in with the Department's sports officials to consider and explore the possibility of progressing this. What other actions can this committee take to help to progress this?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I thank the Chair for the invitation. That would be a fantastic thing to do. We have already met with the Department and the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers. There is definitely a positive response from the Department. It needs to look at it because it is very new and so on. It would be great to have further conversation with them.

What this committee did today was brilliant. It raised awareness across all the different parties by inviting us to speak about something that is quite new. Getting that broad Government political affirmation and positivity towards something new in itself is huge. It is probable that having multiple Ministries involved in it, such as the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, would be good. It is great to see that there is cross-departmental support for it because SOCs are more successful when they are intersectoral. If it is just the Minister for sport, that is not enough. Championing the idea from a cross-governmental, cross-party perspective would be a brilliant contribution.

If we were to do what I am suggesting and meet with sports officials, we should also bring in housing officials. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

Yes, exactly.

Can I get support from my colleagues to do that? Perhaps in the new year we can explore that a little bit further and bring officials in from both Departments to do that. I am being reminded by the clerk to the committee that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is another Department and it would not be answerable to this committee.

Can we still send an invitation to that Department, however? The clerk to the committee has suggested that we write to the Department seeking its views on this project idea and perhaps link in with the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage to see how we can explore it collaboratively.

Ms Deirdre Mortell

In that light, I point out that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is also a key stakeholder on this issue. If it does not say "Yes", it will be difficult for the Department of sport-----

This committee needs to lead out on trying to get those three Departments together.

Ms Catherine Carty

It may also be worth considering an intergovernmental approach. There are opportunities to link nationally with what is happening internationally and to leverage some of the work that is happening internationally to our advantage. I do not know whether that would fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs, which had significant engagement with the event at the expo in Dubai, as well as other events we have held internationally. There is an opportunity to consider how we engage with how this is panning out internationally - to learn, showcase, share and be in that partnership space that connects very much with the sustainable development goals as well. That would be a good idea.

We will leave it in the capable hands of the clerk to the committee. She will consider how we could manage something like that. We have given her a vague outline; we just need the whole Government in here to sort all this out. It is something we will progress in co-operation with our guests. We will liaise with them through the summer to see how we can progress that in the new term. Is that okay? Is there anything Mr. McGroarty wishes to suggest the committee could do to progress this?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

To do what has been suggested already would be fantastic.

We have been joined by Senator Malcolm Byrne. We are coming to the end of the session.

I have met with Mr. McGroarty and Mr. Courell. I was following the opening statements earlier but got delayed at another event. I am very supportive of this. The involvement of local sports partnerships, LSPs, may be key. I suggest that consideration be given to establishing a series of pilot projects with LSPs. Such projects should have clear metrics and be measurable. I have one question. Two to three years from now, what does success look like?

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I would love to see an LSP or several clubs operating like the Bright Star Boxing Academy in England, which has gone from having three volunteers affecting 80 children to having 13 staff and a budget of £500,000 and making profits and delivering outcomes at local level. That is very doable. If we were to scale it up slowly in order that, in two or three years, we had 100 such clubs in this country, that would be a fantastic achievement.

We will hold Mr. McGroarty to that. It is on the public record now.

Mr. Liam McGroarty

I am going back to Switzerland.

I thank Ms Mortell, Ms Carthy, Mr. McGroarty, Mr. Courell and Mr. McDermott. Mr. McDermott did not get a chance to speak. Is there anything he wishes to say in conclusion?

Mr. Ger McDermott

I echo Mr. McGroarty's point in respect of awareness and thanking the committee for inviting us in. Several months ago, I attended a session chaired by the Chairman, on the issue of abuse of match officials. I am aware that report was recently launched. It is great to have something tangible. The awareness the committee has brought to that issue, not just with the FAI but with all sports, will really help us. I thank the committee for that.

Mr. McDermott is very welcome. I thank him for the compliments. Our guests are off the hook for today. We will invite them back in the new year. I will now suspend briefly to allow the secretariat to make the arrangements for our second session, which, as all present are aware, relates to working conditions and skills shortages in the tourism and hospitality sector.

Sitting suspended at 3.04 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.
Top
Share