Hansard

I doubt that anybody will quibble with the central ethos of the play strategy that we are debating this afternoon, as it goes without saying that play is part of the general wellbeing of each child and is essential to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the nation at large—as it has been throughout time. On that basis, we are happy to support the Scottish Government’s motion.

In doing so, however, we want to dig a little deeper into the main reasons behind the publication of what is becoming a national play strategy, and the issues that arise from them. First, there is a sizeable number of people—whether they speak as individuals or as groups—who consider that the existing situation does not provide adequately for children’s needs. Secondly, there is concern that the play strategies in local councils—or in most of them, at least—are not working well enough when it comes to providing for all those children.

It is important that we consider those contexts, as well as the central mantra of the Scottish Government, which dictates that Scotland must be the best place in the world in which to grow up.

I said that I thought there were two main reasons behind the calls for change: too many individuals and groups have anxieties about existing practice; and there are concerns over the ability of councils to make effective provision. As a result, there are demands for greater statutory provision. I can understand that, but, as ever, when there are demands for greater statutory provision, there is the threat of an accompanying cost and potential bureaucracy. Perhaps even more challenging, there is a need to be crystal clear when it comes to the definitions.

I raise that point because there is an interesting and complex debate taking place just now with regard to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill on whether the all-important issue is the child’s “wellbeing” as opposed to their “welfare”. That debate has thrown up philosophical tensions between theory and practice. I think that all of us would view “wellbeing” as having a deeper and more holistic meaning, and yet its definition—most especially in law—is much less clear than the definition of “welfare” in existing legislation.

Following on from that, there is a concern that the more one tries to make statutory provision for an outcome where the meaning is open to several interpretations, the more difficult the territory becomes for those who are providing the service. In his intervention, Ken Macintosh made a very good point about the use of words and how we interpret legislation.

The minister herself said that the strategy attaches a very wide definition to the term “play”. She said that play can be

“active, passive, solitary, independent, assisted, social, exploratory, educational or just fun.”

That view is absolutely right, and I have no problem with it. However, if we are going to encounter difficulties regarding that very broad definition, we must be a little cautious about taking things a bit too far down the road of statutory requirements.

There is a balance to be sought to ensure that no-one’s rights are undermined while allowing the necessary—indeed, the traditional—notion of freedom of expression in play. The legal technicalities of the debate, which at times threaten to tax the minds of all the members of the Education and Culture Committee, are serious, and—almost ironically—they are not simple child’s play.

The issue is partly about understanding why the Scottish Government has decided to adopt a national play strategy as opposed to concentrating on encouraging better guidelines to be implemented in local authorities. I know that the minister will say that they are complementary—of course they are—but I am interested to know why the balance has to be more on the strategy side than on feeding the local authorities with better opportunities.

I do not think that there can be any argument at all that this comes back to the fact that too many people are uncomfortable with the status quo. I presume that that is why the Government decided on a national strategy That point has been made by the substantial number of groups that have lobbied heavily in this area and, obviously, it is important that we listen to their views.

The concerns of parents are absolutely paramount. It is hard to deny that those concerns have been growing in recent years, especially when it comes to the pressures on play areas in many local communities and the pressures on local authorities, which may not always see play as a priority when it comes to the very tough budget decisions that they have to take. A sizeable number of communities are concerned about the lack of suitable play facilities and, in some cases, the lack of facilities that are fully safe.

The Scottish Government has gone to great lengths to set out a list of the main objectives and has provided us with some guidance as to the likely timeframe for each, which is helpful. I note that £90,000 has been set aside; an awful lot of working groups have been suggested, and I will watch with interest how they all come together. However, some of the work that the Scottish Government says still needs to be done is already partly established.

I provide just one example of that in relation to recommendation 7.5, which says that there should be an audit of

“current levels of community access to school grounds”

and community campuses and how well used they are. Such an audit is absolutely the right thing to do. I flag up the fact that at the meeting earlier this week of the cross-party group on sport, Patricia Horton of sportscotland gave us a pretty comprehensive presentation—a copy of which I have with me—on just how far sportscotland has got already in undertaking that audit. Sportscotland has provided very useful information about the inventory of the school estate as it is now—the inventory has been updated—and how the school estate is currently being used. The priority is to ensure that when local councils review the matter, they turn their attention to the qualitative impact of the use of those facilities. That important study is well under way, and the Government needs to pay some attention to it.

On the same theme, given that the Scottish Government’s commitment is to a strategy that goes up to the age of 18, we need to be much more focused about how we can cater better for the sports and leisure interests of our older children, especially those whose school is in the older part of the school estate, where playing fields or leisure facilities may be slightly further removed and off site.

At the meeting of the cross-party group on sport, we also had an interesting presentation from the Scottish Futures Trust about better planning—the minister referred to this in her speech—for community schools, playgroups, nurseries, open spaces for young children and so on. We were provided with a very interesting set of slides on community campuses where a much more attractive environment has been laid out and which now work better. The responses from parents and from people who work on those campuses have generally been very positive.

However, in my opinion, there is a very substantial issue about the accessibility of some of the bigger sports complexes. That issue is especially pertinent when it comes to older children. It was reported to us that some facilities seek fees that are well beyond affordability for some groups, which is having a detrimental effect. I know dealing with that is not the Scottish Government’s responsibility, but we have to be mindful of the issue when it comes to planning.