Chamber and committees

So it is about expanding that work elsewhere.

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much.

I want to ask about linking schools and organisations to keep people in sport. I do not think that anyone has specifically covered that point. It is interesting to hear that the active schools programme has had extra money. With that programme, you have pupils doing an activity. With football, for example, there is often a more obvious path for them to follow, but a lot of the time, after children get to the stage of moving to the big school or leaving school, they might never do sport again. Are you aware of anything that is in place to keep them interested? Is there an easy, known link that would enable that? Athletics is quite a common example; people might need to know that there is a stadium somewhere that runs classes that they are allowed to join.

Thank you—that is very interesting.

Professor Knapp, from an economist’s point of view, or from your own point of view, what would you suggest?

I call Heather Anderson.

I would be interested in seeing a short write-up with more detail on that.

Time is moving on and we have about a quarter of an hour left. Unless I have missed anything, we will move on to talk about large-scale sporting events.

We have had evidence from some of the panel and others about the events that happened this summer and where the money came from. We are aware that there was extra money for those events, but we also took evidence on the different model that was used for the Commonwealth games, and we heard that the way in which it was run was seen as a success.

I will start with a general question. Do you see large-scale events coming to the country in what might be called the old way, with the Government finding money and saying, “Yes, we’ll host the Commonwealth games” or whatever it might be? Do you see that sort of thing happening again, or are there other models that we can look at? Obviously, it is quite important to the country that we host some of these events—I understand that the Euros are coming and, possibly, the women's world cup—so can you speak to that issue?

I do not know whether you want to start, Mr Hunter, given that you come from Glasgow, which has a lot of those facilities.

George Hunter: Thank you for the question. I think that there are two parts to it. First of all, I would say that success does breed success. I think that Glasgow has some of the best facilities; we certainly have a good wraparound of great facilities that can bring in and host major events. I think that that is attractive, and there is value in that attractiveness, isn’t there? After all, people—presumably the organisers and the people with whom we negotiate on events—are prepared to pay to use them.

There is another element to your question, and I am not sure that I know the answer to it. The question is this: is there going to be funding to support that activity? I would very much hope that the answer to that question is yes, but I think that this is also about the proposition that we have. Is that proposition competitive both nationally and internationally? Absolutely, and the hope is that people will pay to have access to that facility and to bring in those events.

Indeed. Many would suggest that it is about what people can see, so there is an issue about whether those events are on television. There was a whole issue about the Commonwealth games and terrestrial television that affected those who do not watch BBC Alba. I have been told that cricket has become almost invisible because it is not on TV much. That is a difficult one, because there is already a decrease in terrestrial television, but it suggests a direct link between people knowing about something, when big events are advertised, and watching something. If it is not too expensive, they might think, “I’ve never seen that before, so I’m going to watch it.”

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2026 of the Health, Care and Sport Committee. We have no apologies today.

We are continuing our pre-budget scrutiny today, focusing on social care and then on sport. We have up to 75 minutes with the first panel of witnesses. Members should refer to papers 1 to 3.

I am pleased to welcome: Professor Martin Knapp from the London School of Economics; Professor Catherine Needham from the University of Birmingham; and Professor Derek Feeley, chair of the independent review of adult social care. I thank them all for travelling here; some of them have come a long way to be with us and we appreciate it. Although the meeting is relatively short, I am sure that it will be informative and will help us as we put forward any suggestions we might make about the budget.

Thank you for your written submissions, which are really helpful. We will begin with a few questions for Professor Feeley, because of his review. I am happy for the other witnesses to come in, and they should not think that we will never get round to them. However, because of the scope of the subject, we sill start with Professor Feeley before we move on to Professor Needham and Professor Knapp. I hope that we will be able to cover what is in the submissions and to hear people’s thoughts, and they are welcome to comment on things that are said in the meeting.

Jack Middleton has some questions for Professor Feeley.

I am sorry to interrupt, Professor Feeley, but I wonder whether the other witnesses want to comment on the specific issue about where funding and control should lie. That is such a big issue, and it is obviously very current. Professor Needham has looked at various other examples. I will invite the other witnesses to comment before we move back to your second point, Professor Feeley.

Jack Middleton wants to move on to something else.