Jamie and Andy Murray: Sporting Legacy
Debate between Kirsten Oswald and Steven Paterson
Steven Paterson
That is right.
This debate is about investing in this legacy and considering how it is to be achieved. I see that, first, in terms of developing the sporting infrastructure and facilities that allow future generations of athletes to achieve the heights the Murray brothers have reached, and—who knows?—perhaps even to challenge the considerable records of these two fine tennis players. Secondly, just as importantly, it is about widening access and opportunities for everyone to participate in sport.
I want to say this about the values that sport can instil: sporting competition is a good thing. I took part in lots of sports when I was at school and since, from football to athletics to karate—although regrettably not tennis, I am afraid—and I always played to win. I was at school at a time when there was a movement saying that sporting competition was perhaps somehow a bad thing because it meant there were losers as well as winners. I rejected that thesis then and I reject it now. There are tangible benefits both to children and adults in participating in competitive sport.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I heard this week about Thornliebank, Giffnock, Braidbar and St John’s Primary Schools in my constituency joining a number of others in attaining a Sport Scotland gold award. Part of the inspiration for them, particularly the children from Thornliebank, was playing tennis with Judy Murray. It is vital that children have the opportunity to do as my hon. Friend says and participate in all kinds of sport.
Steven Paterson
Absolutely. There are obviously particular physical benefits as we face a generation where obesity is a major issue. There are also mental benefits in terms of setting and achieving goals, and the hard work that has to go into being successful in sport.