Opposition to vote against sports bill

The opposition spokesman on sports, Carmelo Abela, said yesterday that the opposition would vote against the Sports Bill because it did not feel that it would achieve its purpose of promoting sport.

He told parliament yesterday that the government had not sufficiently explained why the Department of Sports would be replaced by a newly revamped Malta Sports Council but the bill would still allow too many powers to the minister responsible for sports.

Mr Abela was speaking immediately after the parliamentary secretary in charge of sports, Jesmond Mugliett, concluded his explanation of the bill.

Mr Mugliett, who started his explanation last week, said that the bill defined sport as being all forms of physical or mental activity which, through casual or organised participation or through training activities, aimed at expressing or improving physical and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels. It did not include those activities held for therapeutic or clinical purposes.

Speaking on the reconstitution of the Malta Sports Council, Mr Mugliett said the council would assume the role of the Department of Sports and draw up and implement a strategy of sports activities.

The members of the board would be appointed by the minister responsible for sports for a three year term which may be renewed. A member of the board would be nominated by the Malta Olympic Committee and another by the Minister of Education.

The council would promote a culture of excellence in sports in coordination with sports associations such as the Malta Football Association and the Malta Olympic Committee when preparing athletes for the Small Nations Games and the Commonwealth games.

The council would promote equality of access to sports, particularly as more participation in sports was needed by people with disabilities.

Other objectives were to improve the standard of coaching, improve cooperation among local and international organisations, and promote subsidiarity in sports, such as by encouraging local councils to contribute more to the promotion of sport.

The council would make recommendations to the minister on a national sport policy and collect statistics on sports.

Mr Mugliett said the bill regulated how government-owned sports facilities could be transferred to sports associations and how they should be run. Property would henceforth be transferred by the President acting on the advice of the minister responsible for lands. The contracts would be tabled in parliament and the opposition may request a debate to contest such transfers.

The sports council would remain responsible for the administration of national sports facilities and would ensure uniformity in their management.

Revenue from sport facilities, such as ground rents and rents would go into the Sports Fund for reinvestment in sports facilities.

Mr Mugliett said the sports council would register sports persons and associations and no entity would be entitled to any assistance or benefit or acquire any sports facilities unless so registered.

The council would also have a role to provide assistance for dispute resolution in which sports organisations or persons connected with sort were involved, Mr Mugliett said.

Mr Abela said sports was an important element in social life and should be treated as such.

Following the publication of the White Paper on Sports the opposition had noted the reaction of all those involved in sports but felt many associations had not gone deeply into the government proposals.

It was unfortunate that too few people were participating in sports, although this number was rising. Sports was essential for the country not only for social cohesion and recreation but for health reasons. Indeed the country's own health bill would drop if more of its people participated in sports. Studies abroad had shown that sports were also helpful for children's academic achievement and had helped in keeping crime rates down.

Sports could be a way of projecting Malta's image abroad and it could be a source of economic activity, such as through the promotion of sports tourism.

Mr Abela said sports associations could be viewed as part of the third sector of Malta's economy. A concept which could be introduced in the bill was for private companies wishing to sponsor sports associations to enjoy financial incentives.

Referring to doping, Mr Abela said this was not only unsporting behaviour but one should also consider making this a criminal offence.

He said the bill should also consider banning the advertising in sport activities of all matters which were harmful to health, in the same way as adverts on smoking were banned. One should also consider limiting or banning alcohol sales in sports venues for reasons of health and security.

It was essential that sports became an integral part of the education system if participation in sports was to increase.

The Labour MP said the bill should mention principles related to sports journalists, such as that they should allow space for sports activities which were not among the most popular.

A burning issue, he said, was corruption in sport. There was no doubt that it existed, in Malta and abroad, but it was difficult to prove. The bill should at least mention the subject of corruption in its declaration of principles.

An important element in the bill was that there should be access to all, including persons with disabilities, to sports. This was something which should not only be in the law, but should be implemented.

Turning to the various clauses of the bill, Mr Abela asked how much the newly constituted Malta Sports Council would cost the government, how it would assume the role of the Department of Sports and how many people it would employ.

The bill, he said, included too many aspects which should not fall within the minister's responsibility. For example, all the members of the sports council would be nominated by the government except for one, who would be nominated by the Malta Olympic Committee. Such government preponderance was excessive and did not leave space for the representation of sports associations. Indeed the MOC was originally meant to nominate two members so why did the bill only provide for one?

The bill laid down that the council could provide scientific services to those associations or persons "indicated by the minister."

One recognised that the minister should have certain powers but the powers of the minister in the policies and the administration of the council were sweeping.

The setting up of bodies such as the council could indeed be an opportunity for the government to employ people as it pleased. This had happened before. Of the 20 people employed under this administration in the national pool, 10 came from the district contested by the person responsible for sport. Was this a coincidence?

Mr Abela said he could not understand how judges and magistrates could not sit on the council's board. It was true that Justice Minister Austin Gatt held that judges and magistrates should not sit on government boards, but such a restriction in the sports sector was a mistake because the sports sector had in the past and was still benefiting from the involvement of such people in its administration. Indeed, Magistrate Antonio Mizzi had been elected as a member for the European zone of the basketball governing body.

Mr Abela insisted that the council should be transparent and accountable in its actions, especially in the allocation of funds, and the minister should allow the council to be as autonomous as possible.

Since the council would receive public funds, it should not accept sponsorships, denying such funds from sports organisations.

Turning to the new procedure for the transfer of sports facilities to sports associations, Mr Abela said he feared that as written, the relevant clauses could lead to abuse as it did not provide enough transparency. Instead of the current procedure of a parliamentary resolution, the properties would be transferred by presidential order on the advice of the minister and the proposed contract may be debated in the House if there were objections. He felt that the current procedure should be retained.

Mr Abela said the money in the Sports Fund derived from public lotteries should really go towards sport. The use of such funds should be decided by the minister responsible for sports, not the minister responsible for finance.

Concluding, Mr Abela sought more details on what cases could be heard by the Sports Appeals Board.

He said the opposition did not feel this bill would achieve its purpose of promoting sport. No sufficient reason had been given for the removal of the Department of Sports and this bill would allow the minister of sport to have too many powers. The opposition would therefore vote against this bill.

Mr Noel Farrugia (MLP) said the opposition's stand against this bill did not mean that the MLP was against the development of the sports sector. Labour governments had a track record in the development of sports facilities, including the national stadium.

He insisted that the state should provide more facilities for people with disabilities, such as the blind. He also regretted that no enough facilities were available for motor sport enthusiasts.

Mr Farrugia called for better water storage facilities in sports venues not only for the watering of turf but also as a reserve for national needs and for use for crowd control.

The Labour MP said sports policies needed to consider sports professionals, semi-professionals and amateurs.

Nationalist MP Michael Bonnici welcomed the bill and said it came amid government investment in sports facilities including a new sports complex in Cottonera, expansion of facilities at Tal-Qroqq and a planned new complex in the north of Malta.

Particularly welcome was the role the sports council would have to promote access to sports to all people. People with disabilities had been mentioned in this context, but he would also mention older people.

The council would ensure that sports facilities were safe and of a proper standard

Mr Bonnici lauded the importance being ascribed to fair play as against the determination to win at all costs.

Mr Bonnici agreed with the new procedure for the transfer of sports facilities, saying this meant sports associations would not have to wait for a long time to be granted facilities while parliamentary control would be retained as required.

Referring to the limited sponsorships available in Malta, Mr Bonnici suggested the pooling of sponsorship funds for better distribution to include the "poorer" associations.

He said sports facilities in private educational institutions should be thrown open to residents of the neighbourhood, even if at modest fees. After all, these facilities were realised with the contributions of parents, who should be offered reduced rates for their use. The opening hours of such facilities should be such as to facilitate their use by different sections of the population.

Mr Bonnici said the duplication of efforts and activities could be done away with through the compilation of an annual calendar of events, to complement the register of sporting associations.

He also called for campaigns against doping and gambling in connection with sports events.

Mr Evarist Bartolo, opposition education spokesman, said the opposition would be voting against the bill not because it was against sports, but because it was in favour.

He said that volunteers who were in the forefront of sports activities were being sidelined or starved of resources while the bill would create a council which would likely be a public structure which employed blue-eyed boys. At the same time, everything would remain in the minister's hands.

Rather than spending more on administration by creating a council instead of the Department of Sports, the government needed to channel more funds directly into sports activities.

The opposition would have expected the bill to be a sign of that help so that volunteers could continue to give meaning to the lives of several people through participation in sports. Far too many people in Malta were obese and too few actually participated in sports.

It was already bad enough that the educational system left students very little time for sports and leisure. Sports was also important as a part of cultural enhancement in Malta.

Unfortunately the greatest enthusiasm in Malta was shown in the performance of foreign teams and one had shameful scenes in the World Cup with people widely celebrating and parading the flags of foreign countries.

Mr Bartolo said it was impossible to overlook the problem of corruption in sports, with all the bad examples it could give young enthusiasts. Continued failure to clamp down on such corruption meant failing the country. The Church, too, could do more against corruption with its teachings.

The Labour MP referred to sports facilities in schools and said they should be open to neighbouring communities.

Religious orders that invested in state-of-the art sports facilities rightly leased their facilities at commercial rates to those who could afford them, but part of their religious vocation should also include offering the use of those facilities to members of the community.

As an example, he queried how many of the facilities at De La Salle College, or the Jesuits' facilities, were open to the people of their neighbouring communities. Given that the Church schools were receiving substantial public funds and could therefore save on their recurrent costs for use in sectors such as sports facilities, the least one could expect was for such facilities to be available to the community.

The same could be said of several other schools. By contrast, the facilities of St Agatha at Rabat were more open to the community.

The state, however, needed to set an example. Sports facilities in government schools were not being made available to the community.

Mr Bartolo insisted that state financial help to sports associations should be meted out with justice and transparency. The case of how Lm60,000 had been given to St Julian's waterpolo pitch was certainly not transparent.

Mr Bartolo said the bill overlooked the burden placed on sports associations through VAT. It was still inconceivable how sports associations had to pay VAT on their activities and the equipment they purchased. On the contrary, the bill should be proposing new financial and other incentives for sports in Malta, such as not charging sports organisations the same commercial rates as industrial and business concerns for water, electricity and other services.

One of the new structures that should be created should be a one-stop shop to help sports associations with all the administrative and bureaucratic problems they encountered.

It was important to discuss what an important resource sports could become. In this context the government should be a driving force, rather than a poor bureaucrat that put spokes in their wheels. One should explore what systems could bring together the government, the private sector and sports organisations.

It was right that sports organisations should be expected to give serious and clear accounts of how they employed their funds. But funds should be spent on the particular sports, not on bureaucracy.