Steven Franks - STA

---

Steven Franks of the Swimming Teachers' Association speaks to ePolitix.com about the government's £140m investment to make swimming free for all by 2012.

Why is the government making this investment to provide 'free swimming'?

Steven Franks: One key issue is planning the London Olympics legacy to get two million people more active by 2012. There is also the effort to tackle obesity and get young people more active to help ease the strain on NHS resources.

The initiative itself is to be implemented in two phases. The initial phase is focused on the 60-plus demographic. In phase two, they are looking at those under 16 as part of the post-Olympics legacy planning. In essence, the goal is to get people far more active and involved in sport.

Swimming, being the most popular sport, has been identified as one of the routes to achieve some of the key objectives the government has set out.

How is the £140m funding being allocated?

Steven Franks: Phase one has been allocated for free swimming, which is made up of about £25m. Local authorities will have to make their submissions by September 15 for the first tranche of funding; subsequent submissions will be made for later tranches.

Subsequent to the first two phases, this money will be allocated predominately at improving capital infrastructure, including modernising facilities, in a process managed by Sport England.

Those authorities who have made successful submissions in the first round will be able to bid for additional monies to improve current infrastructure as we have substantial ageing stock in the UK, especially in the public sector. This will provide quite a useful boost to improve facilities, the environment and the experience for those coming in to use swimming facilities.

Currently we have a real challenge with authorities looking to close down public pools. At least with this longer-term scheme, these aging facilities will be able to stay open longer.

What are the STA's concerns with how the funding has been allocated?

Steven Franks: Our biggest concern is how the government has failed to consult with key stakeholders involved in swimming in its widest context.

We would applaud the initiatives to get more people more active. However, the missing part of this initiative - which we think has been fundamentally missed - is widening access to those who cannot already swim.

It is all very well for improving access for those who can swim, undoubtedly improving their health and wellbeing, but what about those tens of thousands of people who cannot swim?

There has been very little consideration given to how some of this grant aid money could be used to subsidise swimming lessons and therefore, widen the scope of people who can access these facilities.

The issue also involves swimming's uniqueness in being a sport that you cannot participate in unless you learn a new skill, learning to swim. Therefore, in the context of allocating funding, we are passionate about addressing this missing piece of the strategy.

We see the potential to allocate some of this grant aid to train people to become swimming teachers, in turn teaching more people to swim and benefit from what is an otherwise applaudable initiative by government.

Do you think the funding will make people more active?

Steven Franks: Yes and no. For those who are currently swimming, it may increase their frequency of swimming. What it will not do is address those who cannot swim. For tens of thousands of people in the UK, there is a huge barrier to taking advantage of this funding.

So while this funding may make current swimmers more active, it will have no impact for another segment of the population.

So why is it important to include 'learn to swim' programmes in this programme?

Steven Franks: First of all, unlike most other sports, swimming is a life skill. Learning to swim provides water safety and water awareness along with the high probability of saving one's own life or another person’s life if they are in difficulty. So that makes swimming very unique.

The other particularly important factor is that there is no competitive swimming unless people can learn to swim. So every single one of our future swimming Olympians has to have been taught to swim at some point in their lives.

The pathway is children being taught to swim, being identified if they have some degree of talent and then entering into a club structure. The foundation, however, is being taught to swim.

Do local authorities have concerns?

Steven Franks: I cannot speak for local authorities, but from my conversations with colleagues in the public sector, their big concern is the length of the initiative versus the initial grant aid.

The grant aid is available for initial pump priming but then there is a projected shortfall in year two and year three. They are concerned that in the future they will have to redirect this funding from local budgets.

I will give you one example. Let me quote the leader of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, councillor Peter Nutting, who said in the local press: "We've got to think about it comprehensively across Shropshire. There are some opportunities, but also some difficulties. I am really worried that the cost of actually implementing the scheme, which sounds a wonderful idea, will be quite expensive – between £200,000 and £300,000 annually across Shropshire.

"That's money that has got to come from the taxpayer. It does seem another case of the government putting forward a scheme which looks good, but taking money away with the other hand."

Now if you take that as a microcosm of current thinking, there is the feeling that while on the one hand, this is a great initiative, there is concern how this will be funded over the long-term.

Why do you think the government has not considered the 'bigger' swimming picture in its plans? And what should they have done?

Steven Franks: One of the flaws is the range and scope of the consultation. As an educational charity, focusing on learning to swim and water safety, our primary message to government would have been, "fantastic, let's get people more active, but what about the people who can't swim?"

So we think there has not been an appropriate level of consultation. We assume there has been consultation with Sport England and British Swimming, however, British Swimming's focus is the competitive end of the sport.

Our focus would have been in emphasising getting people into swim programs who can then access club structures - so there is a missing link there.

The other wider issue is concerning how the government is planning on extending the free swimming initiative beyond England - will it include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Do you have any final messages for ePolitix.com's readers?

Steven Franks: Firstly, I would most certainly applaud the government on trying to get people more active to make an impact on the obesity epidemic and our overall health and wellbeing. In the press, virtually every day we read about how this will affect our economy and the health of the nation going forward.

But there needs to be an appreciation of the barriers to participation and an effort to reduce these barriers. We would like the tens of thousands who have not been taught to swim - not only young people, but the population at large - to also benefit from this programme.

That would be my challenge to government for this initiative, to think about those who have not been taught to swim. If we can get these people active, we can help the obesity epidemic and also have a positive social impact as a diversionary activity away from social disruption in our communities.