Official Report 269KB pdf
Item 4 fits in very nicely with the evidence session that we have just had.
I am from NHS Health Scotland and I have come here with some guarded optimism.
I will briefly give some background. I work for sportscotland on performance sport, which is where my expertise lies. I agree with Maureen Kidd that that is a discrete area, which is dealt with separately in the legacy documentation. I have a history of working in local authorities on club development and with volunteers, and I am a volunteer in sport.
Good morning. I support what Maureen Kidd has said. We must be much more specific than the consultation document can be. We must distinguish between physical activity and physical recreation, between physical recreation and sport, and between sport and elite sport, which each involve different dynamics. A simple two-week festival of sport in Glasgow will have substantial difficulty in addressing those issues.
Thank you for that. We have already had evidence along those lines about the legacy from various international sports games and events.
It seems to me that Professor Coalter's comments are absolutely correct. From the various documents that I have read, it is a fallacy to presume that 2012 or 2014 will make a blind bit of difference to the physical activity that Maureen Kidd talked about or even to basic participation in sport. However, we must address that challenge.
It depends on what is meant by "catalyst"—it is a huge, amorphous thing. A catalyst might be shaming the Scottish Government into investing in sport because it does not want to be humiliated in 2012. It depends on what "catalyst" means and where you put your money. I would start with the bit that is most likely to be affected, which is competitive sport, and think through the relationships between competitive sport and a competitive event. There are then knock-on, infrastructural effects that might impact on broader recreational sport. Please excuse me if I am offering you problems rather than solutions but, for me, too much of the documentation is supply led. Too much thinking about sports participation and physical activity is about getting structures and opportunities right and not understanding motivations and why people would take part in sport and physical recreation.
We are in agreement that there are three outcomes that we are chasing after. From the health perspective, it is the broader mass of people that we want to target. We know that two thirds of adults in Scotland are not active enough for their health. That has serious implications for health and wellbeing. We look at inequalities when considering those who are less active than others. We know that, as we get older, we become less active; that women are less active than men; and that many girls drop out of PE and leisure activity in their teenage years and never participate again. We also know that certain ethnic minority groups have a lower level of participation than the general population. It is those groups that we are trying to target.
Buried in what you said was a list of different groups of inactive people. According to Professor Coalter, we would have to give different messages to each group in order to engage them.
Yes. For example, teenage girls' perception is that boys do sports, such as playing football. We found from focus groups of girls that they believe that being feminine means not being sporty. Liz McColgan said earlier that she was a tomboy. Other girls regard girls who are sporty as a different category of person.
The documentation refers specifically to the performance end of the spectrum, and it has outcomes that we can attain and for which we have plans. Much of what is on pages 36 and 37 of the consultation document is what sportscotland is doing. We regard 2012 and 2014 as opportunities to accelerate our work of refocusing and prioritising to ensure that the planned outcomes happen. However, our work is very much about the competitive sporting structure and the top end of the pathways that we have heard about this morning.
I have a point about what Maureen Kidd said regarding gender. If you want to reach your participation targets, the issue of gender looms extraordinarily large. For example, 67 per cent of females in Edinburgh take part in sport and recreation, but less than 30 per cent of females in Glasgow do so. Unless you address the issue of female participation as a sustained target group, you will not reach your participation targets. The differences in participation between men and women in Scotland are astronomical.
That is helpful and interesting. Does Maureen Kidd concur with Professor Coalter on that?
For us, the catalyst would be accelerating the existing national strategy, which is geared towards those who are inactive and which is already biased towards the west coast, women, minority ethnic groups and older people. The perception in primary care is such that older people tend not to be encouraged to be more active.
I am not looking for a reply to this—it is more of a comment than a question—but it seems to me that the health service up till now has been an illness service. We now talk about health promotion, but we do so in relation to chronic conditions. However, we need to give people a health plan at an early stage that is actually a healthy living plan.
Rhoda Grant has a supplementary question on participation rates.
What happens in Moray that does not happen in the west of Scotland? If you are saying that saturation levels for participation in sport and recreation have been reached in Moray, what lessons can be learned from there that could be used in other parts of the country?
It is a matter of class, environment, culture and money. I raised the issue because I am doing some secondary analysis for sportscotland and we have data. We cannot understand the disparities that exist between Moray and the west of Scotland because the level of provision is more or less the same in both communities. There is more or less the same access to facilities in Moray as there is in the west of Scotland, so we have ruled that out as a reason. We are doing environmental analysis and considering the Scottish health survey and material on social capital and attitudes towards community—whether the people who live in those communities see them differently. Walking accounts for quite a large proportion of physical activity in places such as Moray but not so high a proportion in places such as Glasgow. Also, the social class profiles of Moray and Glasgow are different. Folk who live in Moray are richer than those who live in Glasgow and in the west of Scotland. Therefore, a range of issues must be considered.
That is helpful.
My question is largely directed at Maureen Kidd and Forbes Dunlop. I got the clear impression from your opening comments that you believe that a strong legacy can be left by the 2014 games, but I am struggling to get a grasp of the specific measures that you believe should be implemented to achieve that legacy and the evidence base that demonstrates what actions should be taken to deliver it.
As I said, there is a legacy to be had, but it must be planned for. From a health perspective, measures should be targeted at those who are inactive. Evidence has been brought together in a national physical activity strategy. Therefore, we know that there are evidenced activities, and we want to ensure that they are accelerated and protected.
I am afraid that it does not. I will be a bit more specific. The physical activity task force's recommendations have been in place for five years. We have evidence on participation levels on the west coast of Scotland. In the past five years, what impact has the task force's report had on increasing participation levels, particularly among females from deprived west coast communities?
We do not have a national health survey yet—the 2005 health survey will come through this year. There has been an impact on groups of people—girls, for example—who are less active than others, because we have started to deliver programmes that are targeted at them. I refer again to the girls on the move project. We know exactly how many girls are coming through that project. They are from areas with the most deprivation, they are the most disadvantaged, and they will participate in programmes that will make them more active.
That is helpful, but I will push you a little further: are you saying that the way to achieve the health and wellbeing legacy of the Commonwealth games is to accelerate the implementation of the task force's recommendations?
I am starting with the strategy that we have and then considering what the games can do for us.
I am trying to be clear and specific. Are you saying that you want to accelerate the implementation of the recommendations in the task force's report?
Yes—or, at the very least, we should deliver the aspirations in that national strategy. If we are looking for a catalyst for a lasting legacy, the strategy gives us a framework on which to focus our attention. The evidence is not good at all—there is no evidence of such legacies from other sporting events. If we want to do something different in Scotland, we should use the framework that has already been established to improve health. That is what we would like to focus on.
How do we know that that will work?
The activities in the national strategy are evidence based. The World Health Organization has commended the strategy for its evidence base.
Right. Does Mr Dunlop have anything to say on that?
Yes. The outcomes that we are talking about are: increasing the number of medals that we win, including winning the most gold medals ever; establishing clear pathways within sports; and ensuring that sports are well governed through the Scottish governing bodies. Sportscotland has been working on those aims for a long time. Again, the idea is to accelerate the work that we are doing.
We heard from Liz McColgan that there are some concerns about the way in which lottery funding is allocated to athletes who compete at national and international levels. Apart from counting the number of people who get on to the podium, how do you assess whether you are correctly targeting the resources that you have to spend on those who could compete at national and international levels? In other words, how do you know that you are getting the resources to the right individuals?
We work predominantly with the Scottish governing bodies and ask them to identify the right athletes, as they are best placed to understand their sports and the clubs—usually, the clubs are members of the governing bodies. A simplistic model is that squad-based support is provided at a regional level for the younger athletes who have been identified. Once they get to the national level, there is squad-based support with some individualised support. At a senior level, individual support is available for athletes who are identified by the governing body as those who could go on to deliver on the world stage. Support is tiered but guided by the Scottish governing bodies.
Your strategy is impressive because it points to the fact that you are interested in encouraging inactive people to become active. A table on page 18 of "Let's Make Scotland More Active" sets out by age group the barriers to becoming more active. For younger people, the main barrier is a lack of time because of other commitments, but among the age groups from 45-plus, one of the main barriers is ill health and chronic conditions. In a sense, Liz McColgan alluded to that when she talked about her arthritis.
If we promoted activity to the group that you mentioned as participation in sport, that group's perception of what sport is would be too much of a barrier. We encourage such people to be more active, more often. Research has shown that if we encourage people to integrate activity into their daily lives and routines—for example, by walking to school with their children, using the stairs, doing a bit of gardening or finding something else that they enjoy doing—that is more sustainable.
I will continue that thread of questioning. Over the years, Government strategy has involved showing commercials on TV about the effect of smoking on people's lives. Recently, I was struck by a programme that showed that older people's agility could be increased enormously by taking all kinds of exercise, such as Pilates and yoga. Should the Government do such health promotion work through TV commercials, which have had an impact on other forms of health promotion?
I understand that the Government will run a campaign this year to promote walking. Walking is accessible, costs nothing and can be done in most weathers when people are properly attired. I have not seen the campaign, but its objective is to promote walking.
Could we break down the barriers in other ways to reassure people who are worried that they will harm themselves more by doing exercise? How do we overcome those feelings?
Awareness raising is key. Only one in three people are aware of the recommended levels of activity, so the prime task is to raise awareness. Another task is to motivate people—Fred Coalter referred to that. Sometimes, health is not a big motivating factor. The people who participate in led walk groups under the paths to health initiative do not go primarily to benefit their health; they enjoy the social inclusion and the feeling that they have been given a purpose in life. The walks make them feel better so, as a by-product, they are healthier. The motivation is just to be with others and to do something that they enjoy doing.
I do not want the committee to get into pathways into sport, although it is tempting to do so because it is an element of the Commonwealth games.
With respect, the consultation document says that ensuring that the nation as a whole becomes much more active will be part of the legacy.
I was not picking on anyone in particular. The two issues are very close, but we must come up with a crisp response for the Government.
If the people of Scotland are to feel engaged with the Commonwealth games, we must break down the barrier between sport and physical activity, or create a linkage between them. It is my personal opinion that sport embodies elemental values that can be translated into everyday life. I am talking about self-improvement—doing better and achieving a personal best—to which people can relate a sense of national identity and pride.
Cheerleading.
Pupils can even do Bollywood dancing. Girls are becoming active. They might not be competing for medals and might not see themselves as being sporty, but they might see themselves as being more active. If we could become an active nation—
When the Commonwealth games come on the television, many women will switch over to a film—they will not even watch the games. Even if people watch the games, they will do so from their armchairs. That is the issue.
Yes.
I thought that you were; I was not challenging you.
One local authority in Scotland has two cheerleading development officers.
It is glamorous.
It is sexist, as well.
Some of us might be past it, but we can see that it could be quite attractive. We could always be geriatric cheerleaders.
You spoke about women turning off sports coverage. When I was in the United States during the most recent Olympic games, I found it interesting that broadcasters there attracted a female audience by telling the participants' stories. In other words, people were engaged not by just sitting watching the athletes, but by the emotive reasons that some of them gave for participating, such as, "I am running for my father, who died of cancer last week." The media used different mechanisms in an attempt to engage a wider audience. How sport is covered on television might be an issue to examine.
Two areas that we could work on are volunteering and role models. With past sporting events, volunteers have been drawn from a narrow segment of the population—they have been white active people. We have pools from which we can draw volunteers. For example, hard-to-reach girls who have been introduced to other forms of activity are themselves good role models and could be drawn on as volunteers.
There is evidence that mass participation events can help. One wonderful phenomenon is that marathons are beginning to attract walkers. Of those who took part in the Honolulu marathon, 40 per cent walked it. That is a bit cheap, but at least it is an activity. The Commonwealth games could be used to generate a series of participation events, rather than the passivity that games tend to induce. In Australia, there are cycle-to-work and walk-to-work days. If we begin to build around the games and have events in which people participate, the games might begin to be a catalyst in that sense. For example, there could be a Commonwealth games walk-to-work day in Glasgow. Such events could start now and begin to build up. The brand could be used to disguise what is really a health promotion campaign.
We could use the Proclaimers song about walking 5,000 miles.
It is not 5,000 miles—I think your general practitioner would tell you not to do that.
Perhaps we could all walk to the Proclaimers to get our exercise.
The reason why this committee covers both health and sport is the link between those two subjects. I will put my question a little more starkly than I might otherwise do, just to try to draw out a response. Apart from those last observations by Professor Coalter, I have so far seen precious little demonstration of a link. In fact, there may be clear evidence that the Commonwealth games will have a negative influence on health for a variety of reasons. I would like you to convince me that they will not.
On that cheerful note.
We may be concentrating so much on the games that we are not concentrating on the basic, positive measures that were being taken before we won the games bid. The positive aspect is that we might get loads of medals that can make us feel that we can rise up as a nation once more, but is that anything to do with the health of the population?
I do not know whether the witnesses were expecting that from the committee, but there you go.
I could not have put it better myself.
You see, you are getting the unexpected from us.
The consultation document assumes that there are benefits to be had and that it is a question of choosing which ones. However, we started by saying that we cannot assume that and that we will have to do something different in Scotland.
Ian McKee has rather flattened the discussion.
I will put a positive spin on things, as I am sure the committee would expect. The 2014 games are a unique opportunity. Other nations have not done things in the past, but that does not mean that we cannot do them.
A good committee is a bit cynical. We have to give things a rigorous examination; it is not that we are trying to be difficult.
Liz McColgan talked about the facilities that were available to her club, and said that they were pretty dire. Is one of the legacies of the games likely to be more investment in sport facilities? If so, how can that investment be spread away from centre? We have talked about the suggestion that Scotland might host training camps for the London Olympics, in order to improve the facilities here. The same thinking should apply to the Glasgow games. How far from Glasgow can we spread that legacy of investment in facilities?
Although there are many poor facilities, there are also some fantastic facilities. There has been recent investment in new facilities, and investment will continue to be made. Along with those facilities, we have real expertise in managing them for all uses. For example, the national swimming pool at the University of Stirling is managed well for community use, learn-to-swim programmes, elite use, Paralympic use and so on. New, modern facilities, which cost a lot of money, can be managed well to deliver facilities for all aspects of sport in the community.
There are only 17 sports in the Commonwealth games—one of those is shooting, which means that, given the legislation in Scotland, there are only 16 sports for the purposes of this discussion. It would be astounding if the infrastructure and organisation of and the levels of participation in those 16 sports were not strengthened as a result of the Commonwealth games.
I understand that, but in a way we need mass participation to get athletes coming through at the elite level. If we do not have mass participation and people are not fit and taking part in sport—I keep coming back to the evidence that we heard previously, with which there is a connection—the elite people never come through. It is about trying to get the two elements to work together. Mass participation sport has positive health impacts—not the unhealthy impacts of elite level sport—and you need to get people involved to spot that they have talent.
Many people in sport would disagree with you. Sport has changed dramatically with the use of sport science and talent identification. Most people involved will tell you that they do not need mass participation for elite sport any more. The nature of selection in sport has changed dramatically. There is the old myth of the broad base, but there is no broad base in rowing and equestrianism. The relationship between an obsession with elite performance and a need for mass participation has been fractured dramatically. The lottery fractured it—from 1994 onwards the nature of selection in British sport changed substantially.
No, not at all. I am very cheerful. It is important for us to hear interesting, challenging evidence.
I am still puzzled by the evidence we have heard this morning. It seems to me that the Government has properly asked how we can have a legacy from the Commonwealth games. It has not specified the legacy—the question was deliberately kept broad. I am disappointed with the response. We have in front of us three people from the organisations involved, who clearly have a range of experience—I do not mean this in a personal way; I am talking about the bodies for which you work—but the response of sportscotland is that the programme is in place, that we have identified where we want to go and we know how we will get there, we need more resources, but we are dedicated about the elite athletes.
I think that the witnesses are definitely due a right of reply.
There is not a lack of interest; there is an acknowledgement that the first step has been taken. We are giving our response to the consultation in the context of the assumption on which the consultation is based. We work on the basis of evidence—what we know already. Having said that, we are working with other organisations to see what we can do to make a difference. That discussion is just starting. The physical activity and health alliance involves 2,000 practitioners in sport, health promotion and academic institutions and has a website. We had a debate at the recent national conference. There is cynicism and dismay that this big event might take funding away from what those practitioners are doing, but when we raise the issue we find that there is guarded optimism and a will to do something with other organisations to make the benefits happen. There is not a lack of interest, but healthy cynicism.
With respect, you are not giving us even vague indications. You talk about there being interest and what people might do, but you are here before the Health and Sport Committee to give evidence. We know what the subject of the sentence is, but we have not formed a verb and we certainly have not got the object of the sentence.
We have a framework and a direction of travel. We have a 20-year strategy for trying to raise physical activity levels. We are trying to link into the Commonwealth games as much as we can, because that is an opportunity for us. We will deliver more of the programmes that we are delivering already and link in with the games as far as possible in relation to volunteering and role models—wherever we see the synergy. We are not ignoring what is going to happen but driving forward our own framework, which is based on evidence, and linking it to the games.
You are hoping for an enhancement of what you are doing already?
Yes. We hope that we can draw volunteers and role models from the work that we are doing already and use them to work with people who have been uninterested in activity and encourage them to become engaged. We will achieve success if we can do that as part of this broader national event.
I want to turn Mr Finnie's question back on him. I know that you are not responsible for the consultation document, which reminds me of the old Irish phrase, "If I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here." It starts in the wrong place. It takes the Government's economic strategy, which is a series of round holes, and tries to stick square pegs into them. Some of the claims in the document are ludicrous, such as that the Commonwealth games will encourage late-night coffee drinking. It incorporates existing documents, such as "Reaching Higher: Building on the success of Sport 21". It does not invite radical thinking. It does exactly what you have accused sportscotland and NHS Health Scotland of doing; it takes existing documents, sets them out in the right column, and says that there is a relationship. It constrains thinking.
Your comments are helpful. I accept the criticism that I may have got things the wrong way round, but I asked who had analysed the event to see which elements would be relevant to prompting and assisting the strategy. I hope that I made clear it that I was not attacking Forbes Dunlop and Maureen Kidd. It seemed to me that having a strategy that does not take into account the fact that the Commonwealth games will be held in Glasgow places us in a straitjacket.
You should start with the intervention and work out what it can achieve. If the event achieves one tenth of what is set out in the consultation document, it will be extraordinarily successful. Too much is being asked of the event, which sets up Forbes Dunlop and Maureen Kidd for failure and sets up the population for disappointment. We need to be much more realistic about what can be achieved by a seven-year development period and a two-week festival to shift dramatic cultural and cross-generational problems. There is no question but that the event will have some effect, but we should start with the event and work outwards rather than try to insert it into other strategies.
That is a helpful point.
The document suggests that the games will contribute to meeting NHS health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment targets and other national targets. That supports the point that you are making—that the Government's targets have been fitted into the document. There is no need for me to pursue the issue with you further.
I am glad that, as always, Moray has been defended so vociferously.
My apologies.
Yes, but how do we retain people in sport, or even introduce them to it, when teachers and others are telling them how useless they are?
It is perhaps unfair to say that about all teachers. As an ex-teacher—one of my former careers—I do not think that it is fair to say that all teachers do that.
The evidence shows that, in Manchester, the volunteers who were selected were not representative of those who applied. Members can work that out for themselves. Those who were not selected would have needed substantial training. If we want to use the games as a catalyst, that is a classic example of what needs to be done.
That is a new issue for us to consider. Do either of the other witnesses want to comment on that?
I totally endorse Fred Coalter's comments. We know that volunteering makes people feel better and gives them a sense of belonging. If we can draw from a broader pool, we will already be widening the reach of the games.
There will be numerous opportunities for volunteering before the games in the many test events that are brought to Scotland. Every sport will have a pre-Commonwealth games test event to give people the opportunity to try out venues. That will give volunteers experience. The games will not be a one-event hit, as there will be on-going events. For example, the world cross-country championships will be held in Edinburgh and many people will be involved in organising it. A great deal of expertise is created every time such events come to Scotland.
I am conscious that time is moving on. I thank our witnesses very much for their evidence, which was extremely interesting. It was also testing for the Government, but we have been very testing of everybody. However, that is what we are like. I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence, which will be very useful to us in drafting our response to the consultation. I am looking forward to that.
Meeting continued in private until 12:39.
Previous
Pathways into Sport Inquiry