³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I want to reflect on the point that was touched on earlier about Olympic and Commonwealth games. It seems to me that, in many ways, the watershed for British in sport is Atlanta 1996, when we had our worst-ever performance. I think that the UK came 36th in the medal table, with one gold medal and 15 medals overall.

After that, there was a transformation, with the pumping in of lottery funding into those sports. It is fair to say that the funding has been disproportionately targeted at sports that the UK or team GB regard as having the best prospects for medals, so cycling, women’s swimming and athletics achieve the lion’s share of lottery funding or UK sport funding.

Do you see that as having a direct impact on the transformation of societal regard for those sports, particularly with regard to the 2012 Olympic games and the 2014 Commonwealth games? Could sports such as judo benefit from greater investment in that way? Would that security and that focus on excellence and coaching build a performance level similar to that which has been achieved for those other sports? That is improving public perception and increasing engagement with and interest in those sports. Has it created a virtuous cycle for them?

I will start with Eilidh Doyle, because of her background, and it would also be good to hear from the witness with a background in cycling.

That is great.

I also ask all of you whether you can provide an update on your repair backlog and capital investment programme to deal with that and cost avoidance efforts. As they say, a stitch in time saves nine. I am interested to know what proactive efforts are under way to address the repair backlog in your estates.

Are there opportunities in relation to your retained estate to achieve capital returns from disposal of surplus estates or investment in surplus estates for other purposes, such as the former acute hospital site at Stobhill or the east house at Gartnavel?

My questions here have been covered; I have nothing further.

A major outcome of the pandemic has been the increase in mental health conditions and demand for the associated services. We note that the recent budget allocation of £290 million for mental health funding restored the £38 million provision that was cut as part of the emergency budget review. Although that is welcome, it is still, in effect, a freeze on funding for mental health across the national health service in Scotland. That is being compounded by recent announcements such as Glasgow health and social care partnership’s announcement of a £22 million cut in its service provision and the consequent loss of 197 positions. I am sure that that will be carried on across Scotland.

I invite the witnesses to comment on whether that will have practical impacts on their service delivery. Is that a bit of a false economy across the public service provision for mental health in Scotland? My impression is that, in many areas, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. As chief executives, do you share that impression?

Okay. That is fair.

I want to go back to a point that was made. I accept completely that overmedicalising can often be counterproductive and maybe not appropriate. However, I am looking at the metrics. I will take Glasgow and Clyde. In 2019-20, 111 people had their CAMHS referral rejected and were re-referred by their GP and, in 2021-22, 414 people were referred again after rejection. I take on board the point about appropriate presentation, appropriate referrals and whether they are required, but a second referral could suggest that a clinician—that is, a GP—believes that the patient needs that help and is not getting it on first asking, and has therefore reiterated the referral. Are budgetary pressures increasing the threshold, rather than it being a case of judgments being made about clinical appropriateness?

Does the board use a metric to assess what return on investment it might get against a capital spend? Are you able to test that as a business plan?

I thank the witnesses for their overviews, which were really interesting. I want to come in on how you deliver capital investment and returns in district heat networks. You have outlined specific projects that you have in mind. Ms Grant, will you go into more detail about potential district heat network investments that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is looking at in particular?

I am conscious that your board is quite specialised, Mr James. I do not know whether you want to say anything about that.

Okay. You mentioned the preventative spend bill, and I want to ask about preventative maintenance, in particular. We know that some health boards have severe repair backlogs on capital investment. Such repairs can end up becoming far more expensive over time if they are not preventatively tackled. Is that a challenge in your health boards? Do you have a repair backlog that is concerning? Is it a risk that you see to be significant? How do you approach preventative maintenance?