Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Would Dr Makin or Professor Smith have anything to add to that?

Thank you. I apologise for mis-saying your name.

I am interested to know a wee bit about the research community, because it was touched on. Are there things that we can do to make sure that research happens in rural areas, or is it about being connected with research as it happens and making sure that rural areas are involved in that?

I add my thanks to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its report. I also thank the committee for bringing the debate to the chamber to give the subject the prominence that it deserves and provide an opportunity for all members to debate this important issue.

It was important that the committee decided to focus the inquiry on participation at not only elite level but community level. The interesting recommendations on how female participation in sport is supported, reported and promoted will help us all to move the dial forward with regard to preventing the drop-off and plugging the gender gap about which we have heard in the debate.

The committee aimed to identify actions that should be taken to help increase the numbers of women and girls who participate in sport and physical activity and, crucially, identify what can be done to ensure that they are able to remain active and engaged throughout their lives.

The reality is that we are talking about a long-standing issue that is a really tough nut to crack. Sadly, there is still a huge disparity between the participation levels of women and girls and those of men and boys. As I have mentioned in the chamber before, the figures are compounded by deprivation, with higher levels of non-participation in areas of high deprivation. We all wish for sport to be a great equaliser, but the figures suggest that, for too many people, opportunities are limited and that personal as well as national potential is not being realised.

During one of its evidence sessions, the committee heard from the Young Women’s Movement about the scale of the challenge:

“we were shocked by how much someone’s socioeconomic background impacts their ability to access sport. We assumed that there would be an impact, but 81 per cent of the people who responded to our survey indicated that that was a key barrier for them, which was disheartening. Although we thought that there would be an impact, we were surprised by how big it was.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 14 March 2023; c 26.]

In 2020, the Observatory for Sport in Scotland identified socioeconomic deprivation as the main barrier to participation in sport in Scotland. The reality is that, if we want to ensure that women and girls have the best chance to participate in sport and activity throughout life, we need to acknowledge the reality that affordable sports facilities are being closed as local government funding is squeezed. I hope that the minister will speak to that issue and bring it up again with those in power.

In the small amount of time that I have left for this speech, I want to focus on what young girls have told me about participating in sport. Last night I had the great pleasure of joining a session of the 3rd Mauchline brownies. As well as having my debating skills challenged by a very vibrant and able group of young girls, I was able to take the time and opportunity to ask them about sport and physical activity. There was great enthusiasm for sport and activity, with a big bubbly round of discussion about football, rugby, gymnastics, running and swimming. All the girls agreed that they loved sport, they knew that it was really good for them and they knew that it was important to participate in it.

I went on to ask them if it was easy to participate in all those activities, and that is where the discussion changed. The girls talked about getting time at school for sport. That was sometimes difficult, because “important lessons mattered.” They also talked about transport and facilities in their rural community. That is often more difficult there. Even at their very young age, they could identify that local community centres where they had participated in sport were closing, and that swimming pools were about to be closed in the local area.

By far the biggest challenge that they faced was boys. That is in line with some of the evidence that was collected by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. It struck me that the group of young girls in front of me were just approaching the drop-off range around the age of 14. The young girls speaking last night very much echoed the evidence gathered by the committee. They said to me that boys dominate the playground space, and that they often “exclude us girls” from the open areas.

The girls told me that boys sometimes say to them that girls are not very good at sport. They also told me that, although they loved to participate in certain sports such as football and rugby, sometimes the boys said to them that those were not girls’ sports. It was striking to me that that was the experience of young girls here and now.

Given the research and the committee’s report, we should be doing all we can to change attitudes and trends. Changing the participation of women and girls in sport is not just about speaking to women and girls; it is definitely also about having conversations with boys, men, teachers, sports coaches and the wider community. I do not believe that those attitudes are ingrained at an early stage; I believe that we can change them. However, it takes us all working together to change things for the good. It takes Government to acknowledge the barriers and to put the participation of women and girls in sport to the very top of the agenda, with funding sources to support it.

There is much more to say on this subject, but I do not have any time left. I thank members from across the chamber for raising other important issues that are addressed in the committee’s report, and I thank the committee and its clerks for all their work in this important area. I hope that we all move on together to make the necessary changes.

I thank my friend Martin Whitfield for the motion and for securing the time in the chamber. As he stated, it is great that in March 2021, there was the passing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament. That was definitely a significant moment in the Parliament’s history, and we need to move on it.

The Promise came from that. It was a much-hailed Government commitment. It was championed by the former First Minister, and has continued commitment from the current First Minister. The Promise commits that by 2030 all of Scotland’s children and young people will grow up loved, safe and respected.

It is one of the most important parts of the Scottish Government’s commitment to Scotland and its young people. The desire to make it a reality is extremely high across the chamber. It is a noble goal, and one that we must all strive towards.

The reality is, sadly, that the Promise oversight board does not believe that the current pace of change means that the original aims of “Plan 21-24” are realistic by next year—as we have heard.

The Promise oversight board is independent of the Promise. It is made up of care-experienced people, whose job is to scrutinise whether the Promise is being kept. With its second report, which was published in June, it has been brave enough to tell us that the Promise is not being kept. It has told us that “Plan 21-24” will fail, and that the recommendations in the plan will not be met. It feels that Scotland is going to fail those with care experience at the first hurdle of the Promise. That is not good enough, and we must make moves to ensure that it what is in the plan happens.

Scottish Labour wants to commit to supporting the Government to ensure that the Promise is fully implemented in the best and most timely manner possible. The overview board report clearly states that keeping the Promise is not negotiable. It said:

“Scotland cannot afford to wait; our children and young people are relying on us. Over the next year we expect to see explicit leadership and drive from the Scottish Government.”

It is fair to say that there is a lack of leadership and, for the care community in particular, the slow pace of progress causes some hurt and upset.

I was speaking to young people in the care community, and they asked me to ask the minister whether she feels that failure is being rewarded. They also asked me to ask where the accountability is for keeping the Promise. The Government funds The Promise Scotland—a private limited company—with millions of pounds-worth of public money every year. Those young people would also like to know whether the same person who wrote the plan will be responsible for setting the next stage of the plan.

Those young people asked me to ask about that because they have been advised that the way in which the plan will be scrutinised may be changed. There was to be a phased approach to scrutinising the plan, but now there will be a change. The plan was to run from 2024 to 2027 and then from 2027 to 2030, but now there is a suggestion that it will just run for the next six years, so there is a worry about accountability.

I will also mention family support. As Martin Whitfield and others said, the Promise says that Scotland must support families to stay together. There is a concern that there is a variety of approaches across Scotland to delivering the whole family wellbeing fund and that the fund is not bringing about the transformative change that was intended. The reality is that local authorities are being starved of cash by the Government. Is the minister highlighting that? We want to know that the fund is not being used to mitigate problems within local authorities.

We are running out of time, so I will close. I hope that we can debate this subject again during Government time, because a number of points should be discussed.

I commend my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy on her efforts to bring her bill to such an important stage. As my other colleagues did, I encourage the Government to seriously reconsider its position. The debate is about support for the general principles of the bill, and across the chamber, we can see agreement on those principles. Pam Duncan-Glancy has made every effort, and will continue to make every effort, to amend and adapt the bill as we go through other stages. I therefore start from the point of view of being glad to hear support in this area, but I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot get the bill through at stage 1.

I know how important the bill is to Pam Duncan-Glancy. She has been a strong campaigner on these issues for many years, working with many groups of disabled children and young people, and their families, to give them a fighting chance. I was struck by some of the case studies. Martin Whitfield used the example of a family that said that starting the transition process was the most stressful thing that had ever happened to them—their child had had brain surgery at eight years old, but it was more stressful than that. It is clear to me that parents and young people back the bill at this stage, albeit that we might have to make some amendments.

I believe that the bill provides an opportunity to move things forward. That is absolutely what we hear. Things have not moved forward for so many years.

Like other members, I was not on the committee, but I have researched the bill, and I have been in the Parliament for two years now, and I do not think that any legislation would be easily implemented.

The bill could place duties in legislation to support and enhance the transitions of children and young people, and, given the willingness of Pam Duncan-Glancy to work with people at stage 1, it is disappointing that we cannot get to a point where the bill could proceed through Parliament, so that we could try to pull what people describe as “cluttered” legislation together to get it to a point where we could deliver for people. We are here because we are not delivering for people.

Parents, children and young people have been working with Pam Duncan-Glancy on the bill, and they have found that the current system of support to help develop a transition plan is unclear and that support for parents is lacking.

I worked in the area that the bill covers more than 16 years ago. I remember the situation for parents and families, and that situation has not changed at all in the 16 years since I did my research. Strategies are not working, and committees talking to one another is not working, but the bill provides us with an opportunity.

I have said that stage 1 provides us with an opportunity, and Pam Duncan-Glancy has said that there would be ways in which we could get the legislation to work. Deep down, young people, parents and families have asked us to stop delaying, and we need to try and move things on for people.

I wanted to make so many points, but the main one is that young disabled people do not have the right to a transition plan early enough. There is little that focuses specifically on them, and there is no statutory duty on the Government to develop a strategy for their future. Families are saying that the system is not working for them. We are saying that that has been going on for years and years, and this is a missed opportunity to move on to stage 2.

The member’s intervention leads me to my next point, which is why—when an ideal opportunity, which would give people a bit of clarity that they desperately seek on legislative changes, has been put on the table—is the Government so reluctant to at least move to stage 2?

If I am honest, that is a recurring theme in the Parliament. I have said before that the Government is no stranger to a strategy, but it is very poor at delivering them. That is the truth of the Parliament. This is an opportunity to change that.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that all capital spending plans for the financing of the Scottish Government’s programme of national treatment centres will be delivered by the end of the parliamentary session, as committed to in its NHS recovery plan?

Pam, is that something that you feel the centre will be able to help with?