House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Nov 1991

Column 973

Sport

[Relevant document : fourth report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1990-91 (HC 155), on sport in schools.] 7.15 pm

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) : I beg to move, That this House expresses its concern at the effects of the policies of Her Majesty's Government on the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport and recreation in this country ; deplores the fact that the Minister's review initiated four years ago into the organisation and financing of sport has still not reported ; regrets the serious decline of school sport and the proper supply of physical education teachers which should be seen as the foundation upon which all United Kingdom sport is established ; condemns the appalling effects of Government policies and financing which have seriously damaged sports services provided by local authorities and educational authorities, undermining the right of all children to learn to swim, and of all citizens to enjoy their chosen leisure pursuits ; condemns the lack of leadership provided by the Government for the development of United Kingdom sport and the promotion of major international sports events such as the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and world events ; and endorses the policies set out in the Labour party's Charter for Sport'.

This debate is long overdue. The Government are so ashamed of their record on sport that in the 12 years during which they have held office they have never initiated a debate on sport, unless we count debates on tragedies such as Bradford and Hillsborough and such phoney solutions as the Football Spectators Act 1989, which is now totally discredited along with the Minister who foisted it on the nation.

We are debating the motion because British sport is suffering from the effects of 12 years of neglect. The sports provision by local government-- the main provider of facilities for the millions of our people who simply enjoy the pleasure of sport--has been decimated by the Government's onslaught. Sport in schools has been devastated. Playing fields desperately needed by the whole community have been sold off, developed and lost for ever. Physical education colleges have been closed and there is a shortage of qualified teachers. There are hardly any qualified physical education teachers in primary schools and the place for physical education in the school curriculum is wholly inadequate. As we warned, privatisation has barred from sports halls and swimming baths the very people whom we should be attracting into them. In sport, privatisation is a total failure. In professional sport, football has benefited from the Football Trust, which was created by Labour, although the Government, to their credit, extended support based on the principles that we had established. The Government have done nothing for cricket, hockey, athletics, rugby league, rugby union and other principal spectator sports.

There has been no leadership in international sport. How could there be with five Ministers in 12 years? There was no help for the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, no help for the Sheffield world student games and no help for the Birmingham or Manchester Olympic bids. The verdict of British sport on the Government's record will be that it is helpless and hopeless.

As the general election draws near, a new hope and a new realism is available for sport and we set it all out in Labour's "Charter for Sport", which the motion endorses. Already it has been welcomed on all sides. [Interruption.]

Column 974

I am glad that other people have a copy of the charter. As a result, we shall no doubt have a more educated contribution from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The charter was drawn up after consultation with sport and it expresses the aspirations of sport. I present it to the House with every confidence that it meets the needs of sport.

In contrast to Labour's programme, we have the shameful dithering and procrastination of Tory Ministers. In November 1987, four years ago, the previous Minister announced his review of the organisational and financial arrangements of United Kingdom sport. He made no progress over the next three years. He has disappeared through the turnstile of government marked "exit" and, as befits a man who spent so much time getting nowhere, he has now been sent to the Department of Energy.

The present Minister has held office for 12 years-- [Interruption.] I mean 12 months, but it seems like 12 years. There is still no reorganisation in sight, and there is still no report for sport or for Parliament to debate. However, the Minister has not been entirely idle. He has developed a well-deserved reputation as sport's leading chauvinist--and that is saying something. In the week in which the Prime Minister announced his new policy, "Charter 2000", the Minister rejected the recommendation of the Sports Council that he appoint two of the most able women in sport, recreation and education to be chairmen of regional sports councils-- Professor Margaret Talbot for Yorkshire and Humberside and Liz Murdock for London and the south-east. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Prime Minister gets to hear about that. No doubt the Minister will plead that he is following Cabinet precedent--"No women here, although we are in favour of the principle."

I hear that the Minister has decided not to have any more formal meetings with the regional chairmen. He will meet them over dinner instead. They feel insulted.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins) indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell : I have a letter to that effect--the Minister had better investigate. No doubt he believes that the intellectual exercise involved in meeting the regional chairmen will be too strenuous for him to undertake. That is a disgraceful way to treat the regions. Let us consider the results of the Minister's combat with the Treasury to obtain funds for sport--the subject of the Government's amendment. The amendment is fascinating, in that it claims credit for all the money put into sport by everyone else except the Government. That is extraordinary.

In the autumn statement sports funding was increased by 4.4 per cent.--from £46.7 million to £48.7 million. That is the fourth consecutive standstill budget. The Arts Council received a 14.2 per cent. increase-- from £561 million to £610 million. No wonder the chairman of the Sports Council described his grant as a kick in the teeth. No one begrudges our friends in the arts a penny of their grant--they need and deserve it all--but it tells us everything about the Government's attitude to sport.

I have always believed that in essence sport is a cultural pursuit. It provides the occasions on which hundreds of thousands of people experience a sense of pure delight through their own achievements on the sports field or through the superb sporting performance of gifted players.

Column 975

The Government have no such insight ; they allow sport to languish and even to disintegrate, leaving millions of young people to their own devices. Instead of harnessing sport as a positive force for good in the lives of millions of young people, the Government offer the economics of the marketplace and all the evils of boredom and frustration which affect our society so disastrously. On the "Today" programme only yesterday morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), contemptuously derided local government for spending money on leisure and sport.

The appearance of a succession of Cabinet Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, at all the great sporting occasions from cup finals to test matches is all very well, but when we consider their record in providing sport for the people, it rings hollow.

We must start to change all that. As the Labour party charter says, we shall stop sports fields and sports halls being sold off and end the nonsense of privatisation. We shall encourage local authorities to appoint development officers and create development strategies for sport. We shall insist that every child has the right to learn to swim while in primary school and the right to proper facilities in school for all sport, including team sports.

We shall insist that every sports club providing a service for the community shall be entitled to mandatory relief on sports facilities, as has long been advocated by the Central Council for Physical Recreation.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : On the subject of mandatory rate relief, the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Government have offered local authorities the option of 100 per cent. rate relief, of which 75 per cent. would be funded by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us with confidence that all Labour councils will follow the policy that he has outlined and opt for 100 per cent. rate relief. If not, perhaps he can tell us why not.

Mr. Howell : If any Labour council does not follow the advice in our policy I shall be surprised and I shall be pleased to learn about it from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carlisle : My local council, which, regrettably, is now Labour- controlled, has not followed the policy so far. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with it.

Mr. Howell : I shall, but I suspect that that council is following the example of its predecessor--the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I hope that that will soon be put right.

Local government facilities for sport and recreation are not only the main provider of sport for millions of citizens, but a major social service. In inner-city communities, with their varied ethnic make-up, sport is often a positive force for good. Everywhere sport, music, recreation, theatre and the other arts help to raise the spirits of our people, yet they are shamefully treated by the Government.

Local authorities own 1,700 major sports facilities--indoor sports halls, playing fields, water parks and swimming baths. Between 1985 and 1990 the Government have cut the money for running them by 25 per cent. That is the Government's positive contribution to the growth of vandalism and hooliganism. The capital programme is just

Column 976

as bleak. Four years ago local authorities were planning to spend an extra £600 million on badly needed facilities. The Sports Council says that that has now been cut to about £260 million. That is our future going for a burton.

Desperately needed maintenance work is being neglected. It is estimated that during the next 10 years we shall need to spend £1.152 million on maintenance of facilities built in the past 20 years. With present policies, there is no hope of achieving anything like that. There will be more neglect and more facilities will be closed. No doubt the Minister will say, as the amendment does, that the Government have assisted sport through the creation of the new Foundation of Sport and the Arts. We all know that that was the result of a deal between the pools companies and the Treasury, with the Minister for Sport in absentia. We must welcome any new money for sport, including the £40 million for sport which will come from that source, but there are many worries about the operation. First, there is the question of motive. We all know that the true motivation behind the foundation was not to provide money for sport and the arts but to ditch the possibility of a national lottery, which would have provided much more money.

As our charter says, the next Labour Government will initiate an immediate review of betting and sponsorship to ensure that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, "more of the money earned from sport should be ploughed back into sport."

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : The mention of the leader of the Labour party reminds me of the celebrated story about the preparation of a recent Labour party political broadcast. I believe that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was acting as an umpire in a tennis match, but no one could find any tennis facilities in Lambeth, try as they might, so the broadcast had to be made in Tory-controlled Wandsworth. Does the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) hope that areas such as Lambeth will join in the development of sport in that way?

Mr. Howell : If that is the intellectual level on which the debate is to proceed, heaven help us all. Clearly, my right hon. Friend's party political broadcasts are so scintillating that they captivate even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I should like to correct a report that appeared in The Sporting Life that our review will lead to an immediate reduction in VAT on racehorses. That is not so. Our position on the subject is the same as that of the Government. We believe in harmonisation of VAT, and the present wide variety of rates of tax on racehorses throughout Europe is neither acceptable nor lawful. We remain critical of the Government for not having been more effective in bringing about such harmonisation.

Our review will certainly include the proposal for a national lottery. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made clear, in 1992, the British people are likely to have complete access to European lotteries. It will be nonsensical if our people can buy tickets to build and support sports ventures in other European countries but cannot do so to provide for sport and the arts in the United Kingdom. I must declare a personal interest in this matter, as I am a director--unpaid, I hasten to add--of the National Lottery Promotion Company. What I can say for my party is that, if we endorse a

Column 977

national lottery--[ Hon. Members :-- "You'll be paid."] I doubt it. We shall seek to safeguard the jobs of people employed in the pools industry in areas of high employment, although we do not accept that a national lottery will have a substantial effect on pools betting. That is not the European experience. Our proposal has the full support of the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the British Olympic Association and most of British sport.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : That does not necessarily make it right. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the estimate that about 6,000 people are currently employed in pools work in areas of high unemployment and that one estimate suggests that only 180 people would be employed in a national lottery? That might have an adverse effect in areas of high unemployment--let alone the regressive nature of the taxation that a national lottery implies.

Mr. Howell : The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know that, half way through the proceedings, before the pools industry consulted Treasury Ministers, I was negotiating--on behalf of the National Lottery Promotion Company--with the industry on the premise that, to protect those jobs, it should run the lottery on our behalf. The pools industry rejected that proposal and went behind our backs. As I have said, however, European experience does not support the bogeyman theory that a national lottery would have a devastating effect on the pools. I certainly do not believe that it would and, in any case, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants a built-in monopoly for any one form of providing money for sport, especially when the amount of money that could be available for sport and the arts is as considerable as I believe it to be.

Sir John Farr (Harborough) : The right hon. Gentleman is clearing up misapprehensions. On another important point, is it true that if, unfortunately, the Labour party forms a Government after the next election, all private company and commercial sponsorship of sport will be brought to an end?

Mr. Howell : Where on earth did the hon. Gentleman get that idea from? I spent two years as the chairman of the team that conducted a special study for the CCPR into sports sponsorship. I endorsed it fully and my party endorses it fully.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell : I am sorry, but I must get on.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : They think that you are still a Minister.

Mr. Howell : As someone said the other day, half the nation thinks that I am still the Minister and the other half thinks that I should be. [Hon. Members :-- "What modesty !"] Modesty has always been my strong point.

There is also the extraordinary imposition of a levy of 0.2p per line, imposed without consultation on every pools sponsor in the country. That is taxation without representation if ever it existed. Now we learn officially that that cannot be regarded as a voluntary contribution. Customs and Excise has intervened and told the foundation that, unless its money is spent in accordance with the definition of athletic sports as laid down in section

Column 978

121 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, all its income will be liable to betting tax. So much for the voluntary contribution--and what impertinence.

We have now entered the pantomime season ; the foundation has been advised- -and has ludicrously accepted the advice--that athletic sports do not include archery, sailing, shooting, gliding and all Olympic sports and, possibly, golf, which will soon become an Olympic sport. No wonder the British Olympic Association was furious : it is a gross absurdity.

I cannot understand the refusal of the foundation to offer a grant to the Whelmar Bowmer club, for example. I hope that I shall carry the whole House with me on this and that we shall send a message back through the Minister. That club is an archery club for blind wheelchair users and walking disabled men and women living on the Wirral. It needs equipment and storage, but the trustees of the foundation have turned it down because its application does "not meet the criteria of allowing aid to athletic sports". That is disgraceful.

The trustees should show more backbone and interpret "athletics" by the use of common sense. If necessary, they should tell Customs and Excise to go to hell and so should the Minister, who knows all about the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is doing something about it.

I am not surprised the Mr. Edward Grayson, the distinguished barrister specialising in sporting law, has advised the Central Council for Physical Recreation that the definition as imposed is "a complete nonsense and a serious misconception that should be put right."

I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter.

School sport is the foundation on which all British sport is built. It is also the means by which every youngster in the land is introduced to the joys and possibilities of sport. Its importance cannot be overstated. It has never been in greater disarray. The Government carry a heavy responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. To start with--

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green) : ILEA? Mr. Howell : What about ILEA?

Mr. Hargreaves : The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember, that it was ILEA, then under Labour control, which first introduced into Government-funded schools the absurd and ludicrous principle that competitive sports were injuring the growth and development of young children.

Mr. Howell : I am aware of that widespread libel. [ Hon. Members :-- "Slander."] It was both libel and slander. I investigated the matter in great detail and found that there was no truth whatever in the allegation.

I lament one thing that was happening at the time and so should the Minister. A number of our physical education colleges and inspectors and other professionals were moving away from team sports to individual sports, as though the two were in competition with each other, which is certainly not the case. People who go in for team sports want to go out walking and sailing, and that was ILEA's view. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that matter right.

Column 979

The first thing for which the Government are to blame is the total collapse of teacher morale. Ministers are constantly undermining the profession. Another blow was struck to the cause of voluntary sport in schools when teachers were told that they had to clock in and record 1,265 hours per year plus additional time for marking, making reports and preparation. That meant that they had no time left to supervise school sports. It seems to me that we should properly recognise the amount of time that the country needs teachers to spend organising school sports in the evenings and at weekends and compensate them properly for it. My hon. Friends and I wish to consult widely in the teaching profession on whether such compensation should be given or whether an allowance should be made against the 1,265 hours for teachers who turn out in the evenings and on Saturday mornings.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently recommended that teachers of sport be paid for extra-curricular activities and does he support that recommendation?

Mr. Howell : As I have said, we are sympathetic to that proposition and intend to consult widely on it. I am certainly aware of the report. Unlike the Government, we do not impose our views on teacher unions. There is every good reason to consult the teaching profession on whether its members would prefer to be paid for turning out on a Saturday morning or whether they should receive an allowance that they could set against their compulsory hours. Anybody with any responsibility would want to consult on those alternatives and I am in favour of doing just that.

I take this opportunity to compliment the Select Committee on its excellent report, which has something to say to the Government about sport in schools at every point of the compass.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : I, too, serve on that Select Committee and was glad to hear what my colleague on it, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), has just said. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's attacks on the teaching profession during the past 12 years have been appalling and have so lowered teachers' morale that much of the work that they used to carry out voluntarily has now ceased for reasons that are not the fault of the teaching profession? Should not the Government be ashamed of themselves for what they have done to school sports by their constant attacks on the teachers who run those sports?

Mr. Howell : My hon. Friend has emphatically stated my case. As president of West Midlands School Sports, I entirely endorse what he said. When I attend athletics championships, I often find that as many as 45 per cent. of the entrants do not turn up because they do not have a teacher to bring them. Such statistics only underline my hon. Friend's point.

We must reverse the trend. This matter will receive urgent consideration from the next Labour Government. We shall also afford a higher place in the machinery of the Sports Council and in grant aid for development work to the National Schools Sports Association.

Column 980

Perhaps the area of most vital concern is the lack of physical education teachers. It is impossible to trace any in primary schools, which is where all school sports should start. The Department of Education and Science has closed several colleges of physical education and there are now only 13 to serve the needs of all educational establishments. The number of places in physical education colleges has been cut by 21 per cent., so that only 600 specialists qualify every year. Many of them never even reach the classroom or the sports field ; they are snapped up by the private sector as soon as they leave college, because the private sector recognises a good thing when it sees it.

I am told that teacher training colleges are receiving a steady stream of frantic telephone calls from head teachers who are desperate for qualified PE teachers. The Department's statistics, which suggest that we have enough teachers, are therefore meaningless in practice. The Department also believes that fewer PE teachers are needed because there is less PE in the curriculum, especially for scholars in the top 14 to 16 age bracket. Thousands of primary school teachers, who already have to cope with seven national curriculum subjects--there will be three more next September-- receive no help or in-service training for PE, sport and games. Money must be provided for that training. No one can be in any doubt that primary school teachers are the proper people to train primary school children. Professor Margaret Talbot wrote to the Minister in April outlining her scheme for a new strategy for INSET training so that the traditional providers of PE teachers--the institutions, the PE advisers and the schools, working together with sport--can meet the needs of the hour. She received a dusty answer from the Minister, who told her :

"It is very unlikely that we would wish to introduce any new national arrangements which single out physical education for other foundation subjects".

It is sad to reflect that physical education which, like religious education, was understood in Rab Butler's great Education Act 1944 to be an essential requirement for the education of the whole person--both physically and spiritually--no longer has a proper place in the curriculum. It has no champion these days when the Minister for Sport is located in the Department of Education and Science. We can only ask, "What is he doing there? What has he achieved?" We shall be glad to learn later if he has achieved anything.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to outline the current position of sport in schools and the availability of resources and qualified staff. However, we should also put on the record the fact that many schools, such as Hartcliffe secondary school in my constituency, rely on the voluntary contributions of dedicated teachers who work long hours outside their normal hours of work and in collaboration with sports clubs to provide very good coaching in a whole range of sports for pupils in their area, but who do not receive any support, backing or encouragement from the Government. Sport in that school, for example, is provided only because of the contribution of those teachers.

Mr. Howell : My hon. Friend has stated what is, regrettably, a fact of life--[ Hon. Members :-- "Rubbish."] Well, she is right to do so. In fact, I heard only this week

Column 981

that if a PE teacher gives up his lunchtime to take sport and games in his school, he does not get a free lunch, but if he simply supervises the kids in the playground, he does. That is just one of the small anomalies to which I am happy to draw the House's attention tonight.

Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell : Although I have a lot to say, I shall accord precedence to Luton Town football club.

Mr. Evans : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he confirm that competition is discouraged in Labour-run authorities and that some Labour authorities even ban sports days?

Mr. Howell : The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here when we kicked off this match because we have already dealt with that. I have already discounted such comments as totally untrue.

I turn now to the important subject of dual-use schools where we are facing another crisis. The policy in such schools is to provide extra funds from the local authorities in addition to money from the education budget so that we can provide first-class sports facilities in our schools and colleges for use by scholars in the daytime and by the whole community at all other times. I am proud of that policy because it was started when I was a Minister and has been continued by my Conservative successors.

However, although it has been an enormous success, it is now in grave danger. The Minister has told me personally that, because of the changes in the law brought about by his Government, it is no longer lawful for school governors to allow local authorities to manage dual-use sites, even if the local authority provides them. That dangerous nonsense must be rectified. No local authority in its right mind would provide money for building sports facilities to be used on a dual-use basis if those facilities could later be confiscated and taken from it. I am happy to assure the Minister that if he or one of his hon. Friends introduces a Bill to rectify this matter--I hope that this will happen--it will receive full co-operation and support from the Opposition.

We are concerned about the blatant robbery that is proposed by the governors of some opt-out schools, who seek to confiscate facilities that have been provided by the community and to acquire them as their own. I have in mind schools such as the Great Barr comprehensive in Birmingham where, when the opt-out ballot was taken, the governors did not say that, if they won the ballot, they would wish to take over the £1 million sports hall that had been provided and managed by the local authority together with a large part of the playing fields, which had been provided and managed by the local authority since 1936. But that is exactly what the governors have done. Their silence during the ballot was a deception and their actions now are reprehensible. Ministers must deal with that situation without delay. If they do not, they will kill off dual-use schemes, which is what we warned would happen when this matter was last before the House. At Great Barr, it is a special disgrace that the governors' first victims have been Greenholme primary school next door, which has lost 50 per cent. of its use of those facilities since the opt- out, and Brooklyn technical college across the road, which has been completely frozen

Column 982

out and now has no access to the sports hall or playing fields. Such governors should not be in public office. They should be removed from it or, if necessary, driven out.

Mr. Rooker : As this is probably the last time that my right hon. Friend will speak in the House on sport, I think that the House owes him a vote of thanks for the way in which he has discussed the issue of sport over the years.

The school that my right hon. Friend mentioned is in my constituency. Not only did I open its sports hall, but I was a pupil there in the 1950s. The playing fields have never been known as school playing fields. They have always been considered as a local recreation ground and they have always been accessible to the public. Although the hall is within the curtilage of the school, it was deliberately built on the boundary of the recreation ground so that it could replace the burnt-out huts, which were damaged through vandalism. That hall was partly funded by the insurance money for the damage.

The hall was never built for the exclusive use of the school. We are talking not about a wooden shack, but about a sports hall worth £1 million. Obviously the hall and the acres of land attached to it can be used exclusively by the school during school hours. However, for the governors to decide to take over those facilities in the evenings and on Saturdays and Sundays is nothing more than legalised theft. My right hon. Friend will be aware that that decision is totally opposed by the Tory councillors on Birmingham leisure services committee. The only people who support the decision are those Tory councillors who are governors of the school--they happen to be in the majority. Before the Minister makes a decision on the case, he should talk to the Tory, Liberal and Labour councillors of Birmingham, none of whom is in favour of the legalised theft that has taken place.

Mr. Howell : That was a splendid, pertinent intervention. Conservative Members may have considered that it was too long, but I am sure that they would all agree that it is a serious issue. I am sure that the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will support their colleagues on the city council.

The Minister should be aware that there is unanimity in Birmingham that it would be wrong for the school, or the assets board, to take over the facilities. I hope that the Minister will intervene, if necessary, to stop such action.

Mr. Atkins : The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State may be asked to consider this matter in due course. Therefore, I cannot be drawn, and nor can he, on the results of that consideration.

Mr. Howell : This is one of those times when I applaud the silence and discretion of the Minister. I hope that it means that the Minister will give deep consideration to the consideration. If a Bill such as that wanted by the Minister and me is introduced on dual use, I shall seek to raise this matter.

Today's debate must recognise the importance to society of voluntary sports clubs. Those organisations keep sport going, week in, week out, year after year. However, all over the country playing fields are being sold off and lost to the community, much of that at the behest of the Government. The Government are selling our

Column 983

heritage and betraying our future. The National Playing Fields Association estimates that 800 sites are under threat equivalent to 10,000 acres of playing space.

The first thing that the Government should do, as we would, is to withdraw the infamous circular 909, which advises local authorities to sell off playing-field space. Croydon council is a particularly bad vandal. It has already disposed of a large playing-field area at Spring Park school, Shirley, and it has another five school fields in its sight. At this rate Croydon will own nothing but concrete. As we state in our charter, we shall charge the regional sports councils with new responsibilities to resist such a loss of facilities in the planning process and on appeal. Labour Ministers can be expected to give firm guidance on the need to retain essential playing fields for the community.

I am pleased that in the recent planning guidance the Government have suggested to local government that they are not bound to sell recreational land at its full market value, but that they can let it to sports bodies, provided that they can maintain its use for sporting purposes. That is a useful step in the right direction, but it does not meet the understandable desire of many local authorities to get the best price they can for that land because of their critical financial state. We need much more action if we are to preserve playing-field space.

We also believe that the contribution that all voluntary sports clubs make to the community should be recognised by a requirement to grant them a mandatory rate relief of at least 50 per cent. We must face the fact that many of those clubs are being seriously handicapped in different ways, for example, by the imposition of the uniform business rate. That is soul- destroying for many sports clubs.

Another example of pure vandalism by local authorities has just occurred in the Minister's backyard--he knows all about it. The Leyland DAF sports centre is a magnificent facility--

Mr. Atkins : That has nothing to do with education.

Mr. Howell : I never said that it had. I am talking about all voluntary sports clubs.

That magnificent facility provides for football, cricket, tennis, bowls and much more. The Minister has called it a jewel and he said that he would fight for it to the death. But what has happened? The Tory council met behind closed doors, excluding the press and the public, and granted planning permission for development. So much for the citizens charter. No doubt the Minister will tell us how he intends to safeguard that jewel in his crown.

Other statutory bodies are behaving like tin-pot dictators. The Forestry Commission is now charging schools that take their children to Cannock Chase for educational work about the countryside. That is extraordinary. Plas-y-Brenin national sports centre is now so market oriented that, although it was inherited from the CCPR for the use of all outdoor sports participants, it is now charging the hotel price of £50 a night. The British Canoe Union, the British Mountaineering Council and the British Orienteering Federation--the very people for

Column 984

whom Plas-y-Brenin was provided--have all pulled out or will do so soon. That is another disaster brought about by compulsory competitive tendering.

Water authorities everywhere are going bananas. The Water Act 1989 required water authorities to safeguard the best interests of recreation. It said that they should take great care to ensure that existing arrangements, so important to many local communities, were not disturbed. Those important principles are now, I regret to say, being sacrificed everywhere for the highest price. Thames Water has just told Molesey boat club in Surrey that it makes

"no discrimination between classes of customers",

and

"there are no reduced charges for voluntary organisations." That is a denial of the principle of rating relief for sport which attracted universal accord in the House. The Government should intervene.

We are all pleased that our football grounds are becoming much safer. We can welcome the fact that arrests are down by 31 per cent. Much of the credit must go to the Football Trust for providing video equipment that identifies offenders so efficiently and to the police who have used that new technology so skilfully. However, there is much concern about policing costs--£8 million last year. We must encourage clubs to train their own stewards and we should ask the police to reduce their demands for large numbers of officers when it is not necessary.

Another matter about which I feel strongly is the practice of some police forces to impose unreasonable demands on football clubs. They insist on the days of the week when football can take place and impose inconsiderate kick -off times. That is not the business of the police. Football is a lawful occasion. It should be treated as such and provided with the same consideration as any other sport or entertainment.

It is also necessary to express some concern about the development of the Football Association's blueprint for football. I agree with the Sports Council that it is a matter for concern that so many organisations which have a legitimate interest in the development of football were not consulted about it. Those include the Sports Council, the paying public in the shape of supporters' associations and the work force, the Football Association, the managers and the secretaries. It is good for the Football Association to think of planning for the future, but good government involves consultation and taking account of the rights of all interested parties.

Mr. Rathbone : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on second request. He has not mentioned drugs in sport and it looks as though he is not about to do so. I hope that there is cross-party support for the Government's position in support of the Council of Europe's convention on doping in sport. It is important to sportsmen and to the youngsters who admire them.

Next Section

Home Page