School Swimming Lessons
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1921, in the name of Kay Ullrich, on school swimming lessons. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the report compiled by Scottish Swimming, which highlights that almost 50% of local authorities in Scotland no longer provide school swimming lessons; acknowledges that this coincides with the report from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which records an increase in the number of children in Scotland who die as a result of drowning; recognises that the withdrawal of local authority provided school swimming lessons has a greater impact on children from less well off backgrounds, and calls on the Scottish Executive to encourage local authorities to ensure that every pupil has access to at least one publicly funded course of swimming lessons prior to leaving primary school.
I am very pleased that the subject of swimming lessons is being debated in the Scottish Parliament. The ability to swim is sadly neglected in terms of both profile and priority. That is strange, given that most people in our nation live either on the coast or within a few miles of it, or close to lochs, rivers, canals and reservoirs.
At this point, let me declare an interest. Those members with nothing better to do than look up members' biographies will know that, in a previous life, I spent many years as a swimming instructor. I taught mainly in schools, but I also taught local authority evening classes. In fact, I spent so much time padding around swimming pools that I used to swear that I was suffering from rising damp. To a generation of North Ayrshire children, I was known as the swummin wumman. It is a pity that the Deputy Minister for Sport, the Arts and Culture is not here, because, if my calculations are correct, I taught Allan Wilson during his sojourn at Spiers School in Beith—I recall a wee pink swimming cap.
That was some time ago and things have moved on. A more professional approach is taken to the training and back-up that is available to teachers and pupils. One recent initiative is the Bank of Scotland learn to swim programme, which was launched in February last year in partnership with Scottish Swimming, the sport's governing body. The key objectives of the programme are: to provide the opportunity for every child to learn to swim before the age of 10; to ensure national standards of competence for teachers and swimmers; and to encourage every local authority to adopt the nationally recognised programme. To date, more than 800 teachers have received training in the learn to swim programme and more than 1,000 Scottish youngsters have had free swimming lessons.
The key to that approach is the word "free", because local authority swimming lessons—excellent value though they are—tend to attract only those children whose parents can afford to pay for a course of lessons. Glasgow City Council recently recognised the need to encourage swimming, especially for children from poorer backgrounds, and offered free swimming—not lessons—for under-18s. Such has been the success of the scheme that other local authorities may decide to follow Glasgow's example.
However, that initiative by Glasgow is completely contradicted by the same council's decision to close dearly loved local neighbourhood pools. That is the crux of the problem. Too often, swimming and swimming lessons are seen as an easy option when budget savings are required. A report by Scottish Swimming earlier this year found that 14 of the 32 councils in Scotland have abandoned school swimming lessons. Of course, it is the most disadvantaged children who suffer most from those cuts.
In a report by Aberdeen City Council, very low levels of swimming competence were found among children at schools that serve disadvantaged areas. It was found that, on leaving primary school, 25 per cent of those children were unable to swim more than 8m, compared to a mere 1 per cent of their peers in more prosperous schools. That school swimming lessons should be viewed as an area for cuts is mystifying. After all, it must be one of the few—if only—subjects in a school curriculum that could save a child's life.
The latest statistics from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that, while swimming lessons are being axed, the number of young people who were killed by drowning in 1999 rose by 50 per cent on the previous year. Fifty-four children under the age of 15 died through drowning that year.
Only yesterday, we heard the sad news that a teenager in Irvine had lost his life in a local quarry. I am sure that the thoughts of us all are with his family, which is devastated by the loss of a fine young man. In a move that is crucial to tackling the increase in drownings, ROSPA is asking that the Executive appoint and fund a water safety officer in Scotland, similar to the officer who is in post in England. I hope that the minister addresses that request when he sums up.
What needs to be done? First, there must be an audit of provision. I admit to being very disappointed by a former minister's response, in October last year, to a written question. Christine Grahame had asked Mr Galbraith whether the Executive would
"make it a duty of the Minister for Children and Education to collect centrally information regarding swimming instruction for primary school pupils."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 October 2000; Vol 8, p 358.]
The answer was short. Mr Galbraith answered with one word: "No." I hope that we have moved on since then.
Research is needed, resources are certainly needed, and particular attention must be paid to children in social inclusion partnership areas. In England, swimming lessons are compulsory under the national curriculum. I am not suggesting compulsion; that is not the Scottish way. However, the existing guidelines are not sufficiently robust. They allow short-sighted, cash-strapped local authorities to baulk at the cost of providing lessons and—heaven help us—to complain about the cost of a bus to take a class to the nearest pool.
Our children are our future. One preventable death by drowning is a tragedy for us all. As the motion says, I call on the Executive to take steps
"to encourage local authorities to ensure that every pupil has access to at least one publicly funded course of swimming lessons prior to leaving primary school."
I congratulate Kay Ullrich on securing this evening's debate. As someone who learned to swim as a child through swimming lessons provided by the local authority, and as someone who has carried on that interest into my adult life, I welcome the motion. Swimming is my main sporting activity and, time permitting, I try to swim at least once a week.
Teaching children to swim is really important. As well as the safety aspects that Kay Ullrich mentioned and the health implications for children, being able to swim means that children and adults can participate in using and enjoying the water facilities that are provided at leisure centres across the country, such as the excellent Time Capsule in Coatbridge.
When Kay Ullrich raised the issue, I was interested to find out about the two local authorities in my constituency. In North Lanarkshire Council, funding is vired so that all children in primary 6 and primary 7 get free swimming lessons, and in East Dunbartonshire Council, all primary 5 children get free swimming lessons. I congratulate both authorities on their commitment to giving pupils the opportunity at some stage in their primary education to learn to swim. As Kay Ullrich said, the children may not take up that opportunity, but it is there if they want to. As a parliamentarian, however, I am clearly concerned about the figures that Kay Ullrich quoted for the rest of Scotland.
Like Kay Ullrich, I commend the excellent policy that Glasgow City Council has adopted in providing free admission to public swimming pools for children and young people. I understand that the council intends to introduce kids' cards and young Scots cards, which will enable children and young people to continue to get free admission to public pools when the present scheme ends in the middle of the summer.
I have a personal interest in swimming lessons, because I have a very young son and it is vital that he learns to swim as soon as possible. Being in a position to pay for lessons, I tried three times to get him on to a course, but unfortunately they were all oversubscribed. Luckily for me and my son, however, my mum is a first-class swimmer. She was billed in her youth as Moira McGill, the nine-year-old diving wonder, and we still have the posters to prove it. Indeed, one of my proudest possessions is her Olympic training badge. Sadly, she did not get to the Olympics, because it boiled down to a choice between her education and her swimming career, and her parents chose her education. Nevertheless, I am lucky that she is teaching my son to swim. She could not teach me, as she was working and bringing up four children, so I was pleased that I had the opportunity to learn to swim at school.
It is a pity that, when education budgets are tight, subjects such as physical education and sport are top of the list to be cut. That has health implications. Swimming is often regarded as one of the frilly subjects, which can be one of the first to go. What Kay Ullrich said about safety should be of great concern to us all.
Parents who can afford it can often arrange for their children to have paid swimming lessons, depending on availability, but that is not an option for those on low incomes. Every child should have the right to learn to swim. I support Kay Ullrich's motion, asking the Scottish Executive
"to encourage local authorities to ensure that every pupil has access to at least one publicly funded course of swimming lessons prior to leaving primary school."
After all, their lives may depend on it.
Swimming lessons were cut from Borders schools as a result of a spending review some years ago. I know that because a parent was in touch with me after her 12-year-old daughter drowned in the River Tweed last summer. The drowning was witnessed by her nine-year-old brother and three friends. The tragedy impacted not only on the children who were there and their families, but on the entire community.
I am not saying that swimming lessons are the entire answer—of course they are not—but learning to swim teaches children about the dangers, as well as the pleasures, of water. We all know perfectly well that, in the coming summer months, especially in rural areas, children will be drawn—as they have been since time immemorial—to rivers, burns, canals and reservoirs, which are perhaps the most dangerous of all.
I lived in a house with two rivers at the bottom of the garden. When we bought the house, my husband and I thought, "Should we buy this house when we have a young family?" We decided that we would, but we decided that the children should learn to swim. The local school at Newton Stewart held swimming lessons for the classes. There was also swimming for toddlers and babies.
I became my own water safety officer. I decided that the children would be attracted to the rivers, no matter what, so I took them to the river when it was in spate and they learned about all its temperaments and all its rages. I do not know whether that worked. I am sure that they took risks—children always will—but I did my best. As Kay Ullrich said, Scotland needs a water safety officer—that is part of the answer. ROSPA raised the issue with me. I had no idea what a water safety officer was, but there is one in England. The investment is quite cheap: it costs about £30,000 to employ a water safety officer. Part of that person's duty would be to educate people about the danger of water and water sports, including swimming.
The issue has been before the Executive for a long time. I have a letter, dated 22 April 1998, in which a case is put for a water and leisure safety officer. The letter, which was sent to Sam Galbraith, lists reasons why a safety officer is required. Those include:
"No requirements to carry an observer whilst towing water skiers … No minimum age for being in charge of a boat, even high powered craft, jet skis, etc whilst on water."
Some of that may have changed, but we still do not have a water safety officer.
When I raised the issue with ROSPA, it sent me a letter, which is dated 6 October 2000, stating that Scotland does not have such an officer. ROSPA said:
"such posts are grant-funded by government. While funding has been made available through the Scottish Executive to RoSPA's Home and Road Safety Departments, this is not so in the area of water safety."
I humbly submit to Nicol Stephen that £30,000 would be a small investment for a water safety officer. If one child's life could be saved, the price would be cheap.
When I asked Mr Galbraith about a water safety officer last year, his answer was:
"Scottish ministers regulate drinking water".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 23 November 2000, Vol 9, p 106.]
The Executive had no idea who or what that person was. I hope that, after this speech, it will know.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I congratulate Kay Ullrich on securing it. I appreciated her measured comments about what can be done within education. I welcome the sincerity of all the members who have spoken about the obvious dangers of water, the threats that come from children not knowing how to swim and the risks that go with being close to water.
Drowning is the third most common cause of accidental death among the under-16s. Young people who drown are often victims of their own misjudgment of their swimming ability. Although learning to swim may help children who find themselves in difficulties in water, it does not follow that swimming ability makes children safe. Figures show that more than half those who drowned could swim. However, the other side of that equation is that half could not swim. It must follow that, if those children had had the benefit of swimming lessons and had been able to swim, the figure would be smaller; if swimming lessons were more common, more children would survive a swimming tragedy.
I welcome the opportunity to consider those facts and to examine what happens in education in Scotland. Indeed, when I did so, I was struck by the issue of priorities. Aneurin Bevan said:
"The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism."
Not many socialists are present in the chamber this evening to hear me say that, although I notice that some members on the not-so-socialist benches are sticking their hands up. I use that quote because there is a scheme afoot to bring the Ryder cup to Scotland. As part of that campaign, the Executive, through sportscotland, is helping to fund a junior golf manager. It seems rather odd that the priority is to teach primary school children how to play golf instead of how to swim. I asked my son Duncan, who can swim and play golf, "If it came down to a question of priorities and the Government could fund only swimming lessons or only golf lessons at every school, which would you choose?" Although he is 12, he unequivocally replied, "Swimming lessons." That view is probably common throughout Scotland.
The minister can by all means find ways of funding golf education throughout Scotland. However, if the question is swimming and safety, surely our priorities are the wrong way round. If we must teach golf to every primary school pupil, we must also make swimming lessons available through schools and local authorities. I support the position of Kay Ullrich and ROSPA that a water safety officer is surely the minimum necessary to ensure that standards and accessibility are raised throughout Scotland.
I shall expand on Kay Ullrich's comments about Aberdeen City Council's findings in its review of swimming pools and swimming activity over the past year or two. The issue of swimming competence in different parts of the city caused some concern. Initial assessment highlighted the fact that non-swimming levels varied between 1 and 30 per cent across the city. More alarming, it seemed that there was an association between relative deprivation and swimming competence.
Aberdeen City Council considers itself a beacon authority as far as its swimming development programme is concerned. It has declared that swimming is an entitlement for all its citizens and it is working towards delivering that aim. More than 2,500 children a week take part in its much-admired Aqua Aberdeen swimming teaching programme. In addition, a considerable number of curricular swimming hours still exist.
Within such a context, it must be a serious concern that as many as 30 per cent of children in Aberdeen secondary schools cannot swim to the most basic standard and that there appears to be a correlation between non-swimming levels and disadvantage. As Aqua Aberdeen—like similar schemes throughout the country—is fee-based, it will fulfil neither the council's nor the Executive's swimming or social inclusion objectives, even though it delivers high learning outcomes and involves a substantial number of children.
The issue might also have a national dimension. Research undertaken in England by the Office for Standards in Education illustrated a similar scale of non-swimming competence and highlighted a significant social inclusion issue. In Scottish schools, there are national guidelines for physical education within the five-to-14 curriculum. Although there is specific guidance on swimming, local authorities have adopted statutory minima as funding pressures have become more intense. As a result, the guidance is not having the desired effect. It should be noted that the English study found serious cause for concern, despite the fact that England has a mandatory national curriculum that includes swimming provision.
The Scottish Executive, sportscotland and the Scottish Amateur Swimming Association were approached by Aberdeen City Council to consider supporting a similar national study in Scotland. sportscotland and the SASA have pledged their support for the research in principle, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities cultural network, at its meeting on 20 April, agreed to support the call for research throughout Scotland. However, the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs advised that the Scottish Executive has no plans to commission or support such research.
We need research to establish whether the issue is of national significance and—this is important—we must ensure that adequate funding is made available to local authorities to support fully the teaching of swimming as an entitlement. I am sure that the Executive would support that.
I congratulate Kay Ullrich on securing this important debate. The issue of swimming lessons is neglected and we should pay it more attention. We should certainly ensure that teaching takes place in warm water. I say that with some feeling. At one time, I ranphysical education at an English boys' school, where the large swimming pool was part of the moat of a medieval castle. The English do not understand drainage, so the pool leaked enormously and was topped up every day with cold water from the tap. It was always extremely cold and teaching young people to swim in very cold water is difficult.
The member may be slightly mistaken. In my childhood, I learned to swim in the open-air pool in Troon, which Kay Ullrich knows well. Each year, there was a competition to see who would be the first person in the pool on the day that it opened. It was extremely cold, but it was good for us—the result is myself—and it did me no harm. Swimming in the coldest of cold water would improve many aspects of young people's lives.
I draw a distinction between learning to swim and being able to swim. My brother-in-law, who is 80-plus, swims in Skye on new year's day every year. If one can swim, one can be tough and macho; if one is learning to swim, cold water is really bad.
The Executive should put whatever pressure it reasonably can on local authorities not to save money by cutting down on swimming provision. Swimming pools are expensive to run: they are probably the most expensive sporting equipment. It is also difficult for schools to send children to pools, as classes are disrupted and there are travel costs. It is therefore convenient for people to put swimming at the bottom of their priority list.
It is important that we do not do that, for reasons of safety, which have been well expressed, and because learning to swim is an important achievement for many young people. Achievements such as learning to ride a bike are important to young people, and being able to swim provides a great boost to self-confidence. In particular, for young people who do not blossom in competitive sports, learning to swim is a morale-boosting achievement.
As well as the safety aspect of learning to swim, therefore, we must consider its beneficial effects on the morale and self-confidence of our young people. Whether they are from deprived areas or elsewhere, sportive or not sportive, many people benefit from learning to swim and we should give them every opportunity to do so.
We have heard some amazing revelations today—Mike Russell says that swimming in the freezing cold outdoor pool at Troon did him no harm.
When I lived in the country, I had to make a choice between learning to swim—which I have never done, I regret to say—and learning how to howk neeps and clean out pigsties. I chose howking neeps and cleaning out pigsties, which was an excellent preparation for politics.
In many ways, swimming is sinking in Scotland. In Govanhill in Glasgow on this sweltering, sub-tropical day, people have been flocking to Govanhill baths. The baths are empty, however; they have no water in them. The people inside the building are protestors and have occupied the baths night and day, week after week, in protest against their sudden closure by the council, which was announced without warning. Thousands of people in Shettleston have protested over the closure. As members will be aware from the University of Bristol's study, Shettleston is the poorest and least healthy constituency in Britain and now its one major health asset has been closed.
Although Ross Finnie said earlier that ministers were sort of politically neutered, it might be useful to point out that Nicol Stephen is a Liberal Democrat. The protest in Govanhill has involved a range of community activists including, if I am correct, Judith Fryer, who was a Liberal Democrat candidate. When the minister responds, he might reflect on the fact that his party is involved in the protest.
Unfortunately, no Labour or Liberal Democrat member has signed the motion to save Govanhill baths, which I lodged on 31 January.
Glasgow City Council has generously offered free swimming sessions in some of its pools, but it has been closing school swimming pools for some time. In 1996, there were 23 swimming pools in Glasgow secondary schools. Now, there are only a dozen. Many council baths have closed as well. The council baths where my children learned to swim—and my youngest is only 16—closed shortly after they learned. Many children would not have learned to swim had schools not taken them to nearby council baths. To learn to swim, children need the company of other children and they need to be pushed by their teachers.
Leisure pools, with all their lovely lagoons, are great, but they are not training pools. Govanhill baths took three swimming clubs, involving many hundreds of children. Children with serious disabilities from local schools also went to Govanhill baths, yet—wham!—they have been closed.
The baths were Edwardian. Glasgow is in danger of having poorer and fewer swimming facilities overall than the Edwardians left us with. That must be prevented. The Govanhill people, Kay Ullrich and others have shown that they care about swimming. I thank Kay Ullrich for her sensitivity in bringing this debate to the chamber.
I also congratulate Kay Ullrich on securing this debate. She spoke about her swimming background and it is important that I place on the record the fact that I stand here as a Scottish schools silver medallist in swimming. [Applause.] This issue is close to my heart.
The minister always makes a splash.
The fact that children drown is clearly horrific and distressing, but it is not only children who drown. One of the memories that I have of my early days on the beach is seeing a father drown in front of his children. That was a horrific sight.
As has been said, the ROSPA report that the motion refers to does not specifically identify the ability or otherwise to swim as a factor in causing death by accidental drowning. Brian Monteith referred to some statistics on that point. It is true that the ability to swim is not always a factor in drowning. I know of a person who was a strong swimmer who, it is argued, drowned while trying to rescue others because of his confidence in the strength of his ability to swim. It is plain common sense, particularly in the case of young children, that people's ability to swim can literally save their lives. That is one reason—but only one among many—why learning to swim is so important.
There is currently a lack of information on the level of provision of swimming lessons in schools. At present, the Scottish Executive does not collect that information centrally. However, evidence from school inspections seems to support the conclusion that provision varies considerably, with no swimming at all being provided in some areas and good-quality classes still being provided in others. Aberdeen was mentioned as an example of an area where a lot of hard work is going on.
There are obvious problems in some areas that must be tackled, but we need to get a much clearer picture of the situation. Jack McConnell and I decided recently—at the start of May in fact—that this was an important issue, and that we need to gather information on the current situation. We also agreed that with Allan Wilson. The gathering of information will be a first step in considering what action requires to be taken by the Executive. That exercise will commence before the end of June, and all schools and local authorities will be involved.
Swimming is important, and is something that we can all enjoy at any age. Both my children were in a swimming pool in the first few weeks of their life. Swimming can be enjoyed at many different levels of ability and fitness. It allows the young and the not so young to participate in a wide range of sports, and to take part in activities such as sailing, canoeing and water-skiing with far greater confidence than would be the case if they could not swim.
I am very pleased to hear that there has been a change and that there is to be an audit of swimming provision in schools. In that regard, will the minister consider the appointment of a water safety officer in Scotland, or even just investigate the costs of that? Will he consider such a measure together with a campaign on swimming combined with safety?
I was going to come to that point later, but I will deal with it now. If we are going to carry out such a study on swimming, we will clearly be considering all the options. The possible appointment of such an officer will obviously be one of those. I take on board the fact that the matter has been raised by so many people.
We are all aware of the benefits of regular exercise, and swimming is a particularly important and good form of that. As I have mentioned, it often starts as a family activity, and contributes hugely to the pleasures of many family outings and holidays. Outings to the local pool or sunshine holidays are never quite the same if one member of the family, especially one of the younger members, cannot swim or, worse, is frightened of the water.
If age and fitness are not barriers to enjoying and benefiting from swimming, social disadvantage certainly should not be. At present, we simply do not have the facts to know whether social disadvantage is clearly an issue with regard to swimming, but we have our concerns, which are underscored by the evidence that has been mentioned in this debate in relation to Aberdeen and to the Ofsted report. The information on swimming provision that we will gather will give us the first definite Scotland-wide indication of the scale of the problem.
Swimming is not just an issue for schools. sportscotland has committed £1 million in direct grant to Scottish Swimming for its four-year plan, which is indeed called Aqua 21. That may sound like the name of a new boy band, but it is an important document about swimming in Scotland.
Swimming is one of the sports covered by sportscotland's youth sport team initiative, under which a co-ordinator is provided to help develop opportunities for young people at local and national levels. I was pleased to learn more about young people being offered free access to local swimming pools in Glasgow. Record attendances have shown that that initiative is very successful.
There is a lot going on to encourage pupils to swim but, for the reasons that I have covered, swimming is so important that schools must have a role in ensuring that pupils learn to swim at a young age. Some pupils are receiving appropriate tuition, but others are not. That is unacceptable and must be tackled. To summarise, our first task is to find out what is happening in our schools. We will do that over the next few months. After that, we will study the facts and decide on the best course of action.
It is not always easy for schools to provide swimming lessons. There are a variety of reasons why that is the case, such as access to a local swimming pool, the availability of pool time and the cost of the pool, instructors and travel. We will consider all those issues. As I have said, we will also examine the issue of a water safety and swimming officer. I have no doubt that there will be examples of schools that have been very determined and innovative in their approach to overcoming all those obstacles. We want to spread that best practice to all parts of Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:26.