House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1992

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : I shall certainly bear in mind your appropriate strictures regarding the length of speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that it appears to be something of a tradition--not, regrettably, disproved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)--for opening speeches in debates such as this to be rather long.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I thought at the start that he was making an excellent speech, and I am delighted to see him elevated to the Front Bench after so many years languishing on the Back Benches. Inevitably, the hon. Gentleman lapsed into his usual carping criticism as his speech progressed and as he got further into his brief. By the end, some of us were left with a sense of sadness that he had tainted his speech with an attack on my hon. Friend the Minister, who comprehensively argued the Government's case for sport with pride in the fact that, after 13 years of Conservative government, sport is very much in the forefront of politics.

We particularly welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is a keen sportsman, and, in particular, a cricket buff, which is of

Column 1270

enormous advantage. We welcome above all my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to sport, which is clear both from his attendance of functions and from his close interest in what goes on and from his deep love of football and, especially, cricket. As a fellow member of the MCC, I hope that my right hon. Friend will note that he may shortly be asked to attend an extraordinary general meeting of that organisation called because of the sad--and, I think, wrong--omission from the touring team this winter of David Gower. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will use his new membership of the MCC to register a protest at the silly and foolish omission of one of England's greatest cricketers. But this debate, however wide, should not go into the basis for selecting the England cricket team. I was privileged to be present for the annual report of the Sports Council this week and to hear its excellent chairman, Sir Peter Yarranton, and the director general, David Pickup, analyse what has been happening in the past few months and, more important, what will happen in the future.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned fitness. He gave some sorry figures, which one suspects might be getting worse. It occurred to me that perhaps the Department of Health should make more of a contribution to the funding of sport because physical fitness is so important to all of us. The Sports Council's figures are pretty horrifying, but it now seems to be taking on board its role in promoting the health and fitness of the nation.

At the Sports Council's meeting, the chairman rightly highlighted the basis of funding. Inevitably, this is a matter of some controversy, particularly at a time when the Government are trying to find savings. It was inevitable that the Opposition spokesman should plead for increased funds for sport, as does the Sports Council. I must tell them, however, that, at a time when Government expenditure is under severe restraint and every form of it is being considered closely--obviously, we do not know the result of the Chancellor's prognostications yet--sport will, regrettably, have to take its share of the burden.

What bothers me about the Sports Council's attitude is the continual cry for more money without addressing the real problem of how it is spent. Only recently, the Central Council for Physical Recreation expressed some reservations about the new format, which most of us welcome, and about the amount of money that is spent on forms of administration. We must carefully consider where expenditure is made, but what a welcome breath of fresh air it would be if a sports organisation said that it had saved money or had increased facilities with what money it had.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass a message to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if he feels it necessary slightly to reduce the amount that is being made available to sport, he will receive the support of Conservative Members, and the sports organisations concerned will have to trim their needs accordingly. Much of the Sports Council's work, inevitably, is with local authorities. I acknowledge the close afffinity between the two and the reliance of the Sports Council on how local authorities spend taxpayer's money. No one underestimates the severe restraints on local authorities, for many and varied reasons, but there are additional means of attracting money into sport, such as through the private sector. Sadly, one of the savings that have already been

Column 1271

made is the withdrawal of the Sports Match pound for pound basis, whereby businesses were invited to fund sporting activities and the Government put up £10 million.

Mr. Key : Let me reassure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Government's withdrawing the scheme. We simply said that it would have been irresponsible to go ahead with such an expensive scheme if we could not be sure that funds would be available in years two and three ; the funds for year one were available. We said that we would delay the scheme until we could be sure that funds would be available. I hope to be able to make a further announcement, perhaps as soon as next week.

Mr. Carlisle : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification of the position, because it was worrying many people. The thrust of my argument is that we are happy to expect trimmed Government expenditure, but schemes such as this, which offer the private sector incentives to participate, should be the last to be trimmed. The partnership between the private sector, the public sector, local authorities and the Government acting on behalf of the taxpayer has ensured that much-needed funds are attracted to sport.

The other source of cash that inevitably is contentious and has been the subject of some discussion among Conservative Members, but which the hon. Member Stalybridge and Hyde omitted to mention, is tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship of sport. I was pleased to learn only this week that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has rejected calls to extend the ban on tobacco advertising. This is not the place to go into the morals of tobacco money and sport, but the money that is allocated is well used. Some of the tobacco companies have been castigated for their activities when in fact they have put much-needed funds into areas where they are required.

The other part of the Sports Council's annual report was on the conduct of sport. Most hon. Members would say that the previous Minister's near- passion for fairness in sport and opposition to the use of drugs are to be supported.

It is pleasing that all hon. Members seem to agree on the future of the Sports Council and the sports commission. We look forward to more activity, and perhaps a closer account of how money is spent, and wish the new chairman, Sir Peter Yarranton, well.

The basis of a national lottery has been mentioned. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister--I hope that it was not a slip of the tongue--that we should hear within days about the Bill for a national lottery. The White Paper has received much attention and comment from various quarters. Inevitably, sport will support the provision of a sum, which admittedly will have to be shared with other organisations, of between £500 million and £1.3 billion--a very considerable sum of money. I hope that that will replace the taxpayers' contribution and will attract more money into sport rather than its having to rely on handouts.

One can understand the concern that has been expressed, particularly by the pools companies and others, about the effect of the national lottery on employment and on encouraging "soft" gambling. I suggest to the Minister that some compromise should be reached between the organisers of the national lottery and members of the Pools Promoters Association, perhaps by using them as

Column 1272

agents. The pools system is part of our national heritage and is quite unique. It contributes considerable sums to sport through the Football Trust and the Sports and Arts Foundation. We must be careful to ensure that, if expertise is available, it is used. I hope that account is taken of that in the legislation.

The big question for sport is how that money will be allocated and how much of a slice of the cake it can expect. My hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State will find themselves in a very difficult position. We are all aware of my hon. Friend's deep love of the arts, representing as he does the city of Salisbury, and his feelings will be torn about the basis of allocation.

The question that we are all asking--it may be answered in the next few days--is whether that allocation will be set out in black and white in the Bill, or will be left to be decided by the body that will run the national lottery. Much of what has been said so far today has proved that sport has a good case for having a large slice of that cake. The arts are important to us, but they have always received a favoured response from Governments of both political colours. If this money is available, sport must have more than its fair share.

Furthermore, that allocation should be set out in black and white in legislation, while perhaps allowing a certain flexibility as time goes on, so that sport knows where it is and can plan accordingly. If the sums come out in the way forecast, and if we can get the pools people with us, that will be of enormous benefit to sport and to sportsmen and sportswomen.

As has been said, one of the sports that have benefited enormously from the pools is football. I pay tribute to the time that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spent as chairman of the all-party football group. He was diligent and active and, although we crossed swords on one or two occasions, his chairmanship was a happy period and one which was good for football. Undoubtedly, the Taylor report will loom large above us for many years to come, given the stringent requirements--somewhat muted now by my hon. Friend the Minister--that it imposed on football clubs. Substantial sums will be required, so the football authorities must get their house in order.

The formation of the premier league has been somewhat of a disappointment. I represent in my constituency a club that, regrettably, has now fallen on hard times--it has fallen out of the premier league and now looks like falling out of the first division as well. I make a plea for the small clubs that are not benefiting from what must be described as the money- grubbing members of the premier league.

I am not at all surprised to see that attendance at premier league games has been disappointing. The level at which admission charges has been set makes it easy to understand why people have been staying away. Despite the slice of the television cake that the league has seized and the enormous amount of sponsorship money offered to it--so much that it turned down a considerable sum from other companies--the clubs in it have not acquitted themselves as we would expect. I hope that, when things settle down and Sir John Quinton takes a closer interest in the running of the league, there will be benefits from it for all football, and not just for the clubs at the top. The House frowns on elitism in sport. We like it when it brings us national recognition and achievement, but if it is to the disadvantage of those at the

Column 1273

grass roots and those who are in desperate need of assistance further down the line, something has gone seriously wrong. The imbalance between the Arsenals, the Liverpools and the Manchester Uniteds of this world and the Stalybridge and Hydes--

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : What about Blackburn?

Mr. Carlisle : Well, Blackburn is lucky enough to have a fairy godmother, which not many clubs have.

Clubs further down the line will suffer as a result of the premier league. The football authorities should look at rugby, in which we have had considerable success while it remains an amateur game. There has been success in financial terms, with the marvellous world cup, which raised an enormous amount of money.

The money filters down to junior clubs, which can take loans from the rugby union organisation and others at competitive rates. Furthermore, clubs are self-financing, because players pay match fees and expect to buy their own kit rather than having it provided. The spirit of rugby is self-help, and it would benefit football if it looked on the sport in that way.

One of the greatest sporting events that the country has seen for many years--the return of the springbok rugby side--will take place in the next couple of weeks. I take some pleasure in what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about this event. It is a delight that our sporting relations with South Africa have resumed after the many years during which the politicans kept us out, rather than the sportsmen and sportswomen.

There is no doubt that the frustration and anger that were felt by people on both sides were rightly directed at the politicians, who unashamedly used sport for their own ends. That is why, on a busy day, what gave me the greatest pleasure was to see from today's Order Paper that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has withdrawn his motion calling for demonstrations against the tour and objecting to the visit of the Springbok rugby team.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton) : Before the hon. Gentleman continues to propagate the myth that it was politicians interfering with sport, will he recall that the origin of the ban on sporting links with South Africa was the incident when the South Africans set out to pick the English cricket test team by trying to bar a coloured player?

Mr. Carlisle : I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, that it was the sports boycott which moved South Africa down the anti-apartheid line--a move which most Conservative Members, and certainly I, have followed. The tragedy was that the sports organisations in South Africa made changes, but they were not recognised. Labour Members may remember the famous five Howell requirements that South Africa had to meet if sporting links were to be resumed. In fairness to Lord Howell, I think that he set them out as a sportsman rather than a politician. They were all achieved, but that was not recognised because, by that time, the politicians had taken over.

I must say, so as to refute the criticisms of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and others about the

Column 1274

South African rugby football union, that they fail to recognise that, for many years, pre-President de Klerk and during the worst years of apartheid in South Africa, it was promoting, through its development programme, clinics in townships. I was privileged to attend several of them. The board was putting an enormous amount of work into fostering the talent of youngsters. Of course, there will always be those within that organisation who are unhappy with changed circumstances, but the broad thrust of South African sport is now based on equal opportunities for all, and that is to be welcomed. What is sad about the criticisms of the past few days is that the Rugby Football Union has done all it can to accede to the requests by the African National Congress and others--for example, not playing the national anthem and not flying the national flag. Despite that, a hard core will be demonstrating against the springboks' visit. That is to be regretted, but I am pleased that reason seems to have prevailed and that the games will go ahead and will be played on the fairest and most equitable of plains.

I agree with both Front-Bench speakers that it is good to have a debate on sport in Government time on the Floor of the House. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister the best of fortune in his new task. He will have some difficulties, and he is a brave man to take it on alone. If I were looking for a little more Government expenditure, it would be to promote one among our ranks to assist him in what will be a difficult job. We have great confidence that the Government are addressing the many and varied problems that face us, and that that will be to the benefit of sportsmen and sportswomen.

11.28 am

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton) : I congratulate the Government--an experience which I will not repeat too often--on the fact that they have created a Department that gives sport a place at the Cabinet table. All who are in the Chamber recognise the importance of that initiative--an initiative which, had we been in the position of forming a Government, we would also have taken. It gives encouragement to us all. It gives an opportunity for the country to get a real grip on sports representation. We have been bedevilled by the multiplicity of sporting associations. When dealing with international bodies, that has often led to great difficulties. We should recognise the importance of sport in a society that will increase its leisure opportunities. Regrettably, too much of that leisure for many is enforced at present by the Government's policies of encouraging and developing high unemployment. However, clearly leisure plays an increasingly important part in people's lives as the working week is reduced.

I represent a constituency whose first Member of Parliament was John Fielden. He battled in the 1840s for the reduction of working hours to 10 hours a day for a six-day week. One recognises the difference from our society today. Increasingly, people will seek to exploit their leisure opportunities more fully.

Sport has a crucial part to play in that respect and it is important that we recognise the role that sport plays in the development of the individual personality and in the development of self-confidence. In team sports, there is the development of relationships with other people towards a

Column 1275

common endeavour. Unity of purpose and a sense of teamwork are some of the most valued aspects of any social relationships.

I know that I sound like Thomas Arnold and the 19th century public school image of sport. However, the value is more lasting than that. Translating it into the late 20th century is straightforward enough. Sport offers an essential democracy and equality of opportunity in terms of sporting achievement, if we get the preconditions right. It is clear from our present sporting prowess that sport offers a significant opportunity for children from deprived backgrounds, from working-class backgrounds and from ethnic minority backgrounds to make their mark dramatically in our society. I cannot think of a single premier league football team that does not have a black player starring in it. Several rely greatly on the contribution of youngsters from such backgrounds. We have already heard tributes to the achievements of women in athletics in the Olympic games and elsewhere. Many have come from ethnic minorities.

I will deal next with the relationship between education and sport. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that I shall address my remarks to him because I recognise that there is an inevitable overlap between his Department and the Department for Education. It is important that we take the opportunity to sharpen the bargaining position of the Minister and his Department in relation to education.

Opposition Members emphasise our great anxieties about some aspects of the decline in sporting opportunities. This morning, we have had too rosy a picture and it has been said that all is well in sport. Many of us contend that there is much that leaves great cause for anxiety. We should tackle the problem at grass roots in terms of educational and sporting opportunity among the young.

My more general point is that there is no cause for complacency in society about the level of participation in sport. It may be high, but it is still far too low. Some 50 per cent. of adults engage in no sporting recreational activity. As the Minister freely confessed, some aspects of the nation's health would benefit greatly from increased participation in sport.

Dr. Spink : The hon. Gentleman talked about education and sport. Does he welcome the fact that the national curriculum now makes physical training a compulsory subject from the ages of five to 16? Is he not ashamed of the fact that his party was against the national curriculum only a couple of years ago?

Mr. Davies : The hon. Gentleman has attempted to pre-empt what I was going to say about aspects of the national curriculum, so I will cover his points in a moment. I welcome the fact that physical education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum for children from the ages of five to 16.

There is no cause for complacency in terms of the nation's achievements in sport. I have referred to the question of the nation's health. The nation's achievements in sport leave a great deal to be desired. It will not do for our country to pretend that there is a trickle-down effect in national sporting associations which guarantees the development of talent and achievement for the future.

The most obvious example is the fact that this country has staged for more than 100 years the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. Wimbledon produces vast revenues, yet we are no nearer today than we were 30 years

Column 1276

ago to any achievement of tennis excellence. The facilities available here are restricted overwhelmingly to private clubs. Public provision is still at a pathetically low level. In France, even the most modest village has several tennis courts of a high standard. We should recognise that the French drive 20 years ago to develop interest in tennis leaves our efforts pale by comparison. There are no major team games in which we can be satisfied with our overall performance. There are widespread anxieties about the technical level of excellence of the England football team which is an important flag-bearer for England. There are similar anxieties about the Scottish side. It is not the case that teams representing Britain sweep all before them--far from it. When did we last win the soccer world cup? It was 26 years ago in 1966. We just struggled into the last four in more recent times. Our test cricket performances have fallen considerably below standard. Although England has reigned supreme for a short time in the rugby home championship, the moment we clash with teams from the southern hemisphere we are obliged to give way.

We should recognise that there are anxieties about our major team games. The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned those who were successful in the Olympic games--and I congratulate them--but we cannot pretend that the nation regards the overall achievements of the British Olympic team as being outstanding. That has been the case for a number of recent Olympic games.

We need to think seriously about the roots of achievement and the Government must answer our case. There is a pronounced decline in school sport. There is provision within the national curriculum for physical education, but certain aspects of team games in sport have suffered enormously in recent years. They have suffered from the forced sell-off, because of constraints on expenditure and resources, of school playing fields which has greatly reduced the facilities of many of our local authority schools. Such a reduction in facilities would never be countenanced in the more elite parts of the private education sector. I have not heard of sales of the playing fields of Eton, for instance.

The Government also stand charged with having done a great deal of damage to sport in schools during the long wrangles of the 1980s over teachers' contracts and pay. That was a typical example of the Government's, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. They ended up with a narrow definition of teachers' responsibilities, thereby throwing away vast amounts of good will and voluntary effort which had sustained school sport for many years. The reduction in school sports can be directly attributed to the reduction in that contribution.

We cannot expect private institutions or clubs to take up the slack. They often find themselves having to enforce subscriptions which in turn deter less well-off youngsters. So what is lost at school is not made up for by private clubs.

I apologise if the Minister thinks that I am talking too much about education, but I must add that it is time that the nation thought seriously about the role of sport in higher education. I know that it has always been part of our elitist tradition--we did not mind Oxford and Cambridge showing a little indulgence from time to time when it came to entry qualifications so that their rugger sides and rowing crews would be of the requisite standard. But pressure from the meritocratic growth of society has

Column 1277

lowered performance standards in these areas. Oxbridge no longer competes adequately with rugby clubs or county cricket sides. In any case, it was always a hopelessly restrictive and elitist model, based on a misconception of higher education.

What we ought to be thinking about is whether sporting achievement and performance can be truly realised in higher education. Why cannot there be many more courses that include sporting excellence and an understanding of sport ? We of course should not go overboard like the American college system which includes quasi-professional sides playing football, but we certainly should ensure that youngsters with great potential for achieving sporting excellence can enter universities and higher education institutions to pursue courses that include opportunities for sport, while sustaining an educational component in their work. The tragedy for so many of our youngsters is that they face a brutal choice between pursuing sporting excellence, and following an academic career which will end their chance of developing sporting skills. We owe it to talented youngsters and to ourselves to nurture sporting excellence by ensuring that higher education institutions take responsibility for it.

My final response, therefore, to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is that it is not enough to provide physical education for children between the ages of five and 16. Beyond that age, schools and other academic institutions should develop sporting excellence. The old 19th century myth persists : there are those who achieve through the intellect and there are those who achieve through physical prowess--as if the two did not complement each other. The person who is to be commended is the one who can demonstrate a capacity in both areas.

I see our sporting culture being weakened because of changes in television. I address these remarks directly to the Minister. There are great dangers in leaving televised sport to the market. Already this year, BSkyB and the BBC in collaboration have taken off our television screens--apart from "Match of the Day" highlights--most of our football matches. The televising of major premier league games has thus been restricted to a narrower audience. We should not accept the idea that crucial parts of the nation's sporting culture should be restricted to broadcasting on BSkyB which, by definition, will transmit only to a minority for the foreseeable future.

I know that the Minister will say that crucial events have been guaranteed for more universal appreciation, but I am worried about the list of those events. I should like the Government to show that they share my anxieties in the wake of recent developments in the broadcasting of football.

First, the list of sporting events protected from pay television is too short. We need to develop a wider appreciation of a range of sports. Appreciation of the open golf championships is growing apace, but they can be sold off to restrictive television. The sport is likely to go for the highest bidder, even though the Minister has said that golf is one of the fastest growing participatory sports. I am even more worried about the fact that the cricket world cup last winter was shown only on BSkyB. Even the

Column 1278

Prime Minister winced at that. Cricket lovers across the nation were shocked that neither the BBC nor independent television had access to those broadcasts.

Among the sporting world and the public at large who enjoy watching televised sport there is a widespread misconception : the restrictions control not satellite broadcasting but pay television only. It is, however, open to BSkyB, with the vast resources of the multinational media network that Rupert Murdoch controls, to operate a massive loss-leading exercise of grabbing major sporting events for restricted television. When the agreements covering some of these events run out for the BBC and ITV, and BSkyB successfully outbids our national television networks to show the cup final, the world cup final or the test matches, I warn the Minister that the nation will rise up in arms against such a misconceived development in television. The Government's ideological preconceptions are related to the law of the market. However, I warn them that they must not allow the law of market television to restrict access to our major sporting events.

I welcome the development of the national lottery in terms of the increased resources that will be made available. However, I share the anxieties that have been expressed about the impact on the football pools and the resources made available from the pools to the Football Trust and to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Unless there is some concession to the football pools in terms of a continuation of the betting duty exemption, and unless the pools can promote their services on the same basis as the national lottery, resources for football and the enormous costs of the implementation of the Taylor report will run into difficulties.

We are all united in our determination to secure the Olympic games for Manchester. I make no bones about the fact that I have an immediate constituency interest because Oldham will benefit as a listed site when the bid is successful. In that drive to success, I assure the Minister that the north-west will speak with one voice with the rest of the nation to ensure that the Olympic games come to Manchester. I did not today expect to hear praise from the Government for the quality of Manchester's weather. If the Government can take such a favourable view of the weather in the north- west, they can surely guarantee full support for the Olympic games bid.

11.51 am

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : It is a great privilege for me to take part in this debate, in which I want to refer to education and health. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I was delighted to hear that he was a boxer. Hon. Members can see that I was a boxer. Judging from the shape of the nose of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, clearly he was a better boxer than I was.

The link between education and sport is fundamental to a successful policy for sport, to the success of individuals in sport and to the success of our nation in all sporting activities. Children who are encouraged to take part in sport early in their lives generally tend to take part in sport later on in their lives, and that can only be a good thing. I therefore welcome the fact that the Department of National Heritage is working closely with the Department for Education in promoting sport in schools of all kinds.

Column 1279

As a member of the Education Select Committee, I am delighted that the national curriculum includes physical education, which will be compulsory for every schoolgirl and schoolboy from four to 16. That is as it should be, because PE develops a healthy body and a healthy mind. It also promotes a healthy awareness and understanding of the place of competition in sport and in life. Many sports help to develop a keen understanding of teamwork.

My constituency is on the Thames, and it includes Canvey island. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have recommended that all pupils should be taught to swim by the age of 11. That will be a formal requirement from the autumn of 1994. My only criticism is to ask why that was not done years ago. The ability to swim will save the lives of children every week.

I also pay tribute to the Sports Council, which will spend £2.2 million in 1992-93 on developing sport for young people. That is a great initiative. However, I have another slight criticism. That level of spending is a little low in comparison with the massive sum spent on tobacco advertising. I welcome the work of the Sports Council and I congratulate it. I want to find ways to enable the council to do much more.

Hon. Members will forgive me if I refer a little to my constituency and mention the excellent sporting achievements of many disabled people in Castle Point. I have been deeply impressed by their efforts and achievements in sport. I congratulate the often unsung heroes of the Castle Point sports club for the disabled. What I enjoy most is the happiness, joy and fulfilment that sporting activity can bring to people of all levels of ability.

I also pay tribute to the champion coaching scheme, which promotes sporting opportunities after school hours. The scheme has enabled about 6,000 children and youths to enjoy the highest quality coaching. Its success will be consolidated by the allocation of an extra £1.3 million over the next two years. That is being made available by the excellent Foundation for Sport and the Arts to which the Minister referred.

Although recent developments in sport and education have been generally encouraging, there are some areas of concern, one of which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). He referred to extra-curricular sport, but his analysis was wrong. I welcome the great efforts of many teachers who, in after-school hours and on a purely voluntary basis, run extra-curricular sporting activities. However, I call for a return to the regimes that endured before the teachers' dispute in the mid-1980s, when even greater extra-curricular efforts were made by the teaching profession.

The present shortfall is the result of the actions of the teaching unions. It has nothing to do with the Government. However, let me unreservedly congratulate teachers on their dedication, caring attitude and professionalism which they show to our children. They often work well beyond the call of duty. Many teachers work longer hours than some hon. Members.

Sadly, the public perception is as misguided about the work load of teachers as it is about the work load of Members of Parliament. Will the Minister encourage the use of school facilities, including the facilities of grant-maintained schools, for the benefit of the whole community? I will press the Minister to take note of that point when the Education Bill is presented to the House.

I want now to refer to sport and health and the position of tobacco advertising and sponsorship--which, in reality,

Column 1280

are the same thing. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The Department of Health produced a brief in June on the European Community directive on tobacco advertising, which concluded that if the directive were implemented, it would result in the prohibition of sponsorship of sport of all kinds. That would be no bad thing--indeed, it should have been done years ago. No cigarette advertisements have been allowed on television in this country since 1965, yet Sir Donald Maitland, chairman of the Health Education Authority, tells us that 64 per cent. of children between the ages of nine and 14 honestly believe that they see tobacco advertising on television. How can that be? Sir Donald Maitland said :

"What they are seeing are sporting events sponsored by tobacco companies : cricket, snooker, tennis, rugby, motor racing, etc. There is currently an average of one hour's television coverage every day of sporting activity associated with the major tobacco brands. All of this coverage is on BBC Television."

Hon. Members will know that the ITV companies decided formally not to televise tobacco-sponsored sporting events. It is a totally accepted fact that tobacco advertising increases consumption.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Hon. Members will have read the Smee report this week. It states that, whereas people may be aware through sport that Marlboro, for instance, might be associated with motor racing, that will not encourage people to smoke. More to the contrary is the fact that, with advertising for tobacco products at sporting events, we see warnings that smoking kills. That is far more persuasive than any other advertisement.

Dr. Spink : I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but he is a little naive. If he believes that all that money is spent by those companies in a philanthropic way rather than in order to promote the consumption of their products, he is not the man I think he is.

We must act now to remove the farcical link between sport, which is good and healthy, and cigarettes, which are unhealthy and filthy. If hon. Members would like to take issue with me on that matter, I suggest that they nip down to their local hospital, pop into the lung and heart wards, and talk to the families of the people on the machines there.

Of course, the Government's attitude is that voluntary agreements are the best way to control tobacco advertising and that the EC directive need not be ratified in order to complete the single internal market. I do not agree with that at all. It is irrational and irresponsible. I urge action to remove cigarette advertising in sport, including sport sponsorship.

I realise that there are massive vested interests, and that my move will be strongly resisted. I realise also that the Exchequer receives massive sums from cigarette taxation. However, the money saved from reduced absenteeism and the consequential increase in production across the nation, and the money saved from reduced health care costs would more than compensate the Exchequer for that loss. That is to say nothing of the human costs that tobacco inflicts on smokers, their families and their friends.

The link between smoking and sport is deeply paradoxical. Sport offers the wonderful gift of health. Smoking takes that gift away. I now call on Her Majesty's Government to remove the link between sport and smoking.

Column 1281

I recognise also the excellent work of Mr. and Mrs. Blissett and others from Canvey island, who are doing so much to help health and sport on Canvey island in my constituency. They are doing so by resisting the proposed foreign coal transhipment terminal for Canvey island, a matter on which I shall soon present a petition to the House. That terminal would do to people's lungs what smoking does : coal dust would put their lungs at risk and inhibit their sporting opportunities.

I question the moribund Labour policy on sport, which is to meddle and put shackles on all forms of sport. Labour Members would throttle sport by the dead hand of bureaucratic control--that is, if it is possible to throttle something with a dead hand. Of all the daft Labour policies, few are dafter than that of discouraging competition in sport in schools. That did for sport in some schools what Labour education authorities did for reading standards and religious education in those schools.

I want to end on a positive and optimistic note. I welcome the Government's sporting policy which, in contrast to Labour's, is to promote wider participation and higher standards in sport across all sports, across the whole nation, across the whole of people's ability ranges and across all age groups. That is to be welcomed. I want to celebrate the excellence at all levels which is achieved by all those involved in sport--none more so than the players of Leeds United. 12.5 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I begin by apologising to the House if I leave soon after the conclusion of my speech. I have a long- standing engagement in Inverness later today and, if the weather forecast is to be believed, I may have to resort to skiing to reach it. I have advised the Minister and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), and they have been characteristically understanding of my position.

As the spokesman for my party, I welcome the Minister and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. Their exchanges this morning were rather quieter than those that we have become used to in sports debates in recent years, but I doubt whether they will be anything other than constructive.

Mr. Pendry : I do not want to lull the hon. and learned Gentleman into a false stance, because I have said that the Minister is very much on trial. He is in his honeymoon period, so he deserves a little quiet at this stage in his parliamentary career as the Minister with responsibility for sport.

Mr. Campbell : The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde brings to his new responsibility a great depth of knowledge of sport, but I do not think that he brings the unshakable conviction in his own infallibility which his predecessor exhibited from time to time. I hope that the formation of the new Department will cause us to have more regular debates on sport. Today's debate has already eloquently demonstrated that, in future, we may need to be rather more specific about the topics that we discuss. If legislation is introduced to promote a national lottery, in respect of which my agnosticism remains unshaken, clearly that will be a focused debate.

Column 1282

For example, the sport and industry of horse racing is in crisis. It must surely be necessary at some very early stage for the House to have the opportunity to discuss the state of horse racing and to take account of the implications for the economy if it were to go further into decline.

I hope also that the Minister will be rather more prominent than his predecessor, who has been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. I began to believe that, with the exception of test matches, the Minister's predecessor had taken an advanced course in potholing, so discreet was he in his appearances as Minister with responsibility for sport.

As the Minister said, this debate is timely after yet another Olympic games. I should like to say a word or two about the structure of sport, about international events and then a little more about drugs, which is a topic in which I have very considerable interest. Before I do so, I join hon. Members who have paid tribute to the quite extraordinary contribution of Sir Arthur Gold to sport in Britain over, I suspect, about 50 years.

I first met him when I was an international athlete in the United Kingdom athletics team and he was the team manager. I have known him as a distinguished sports administrator since then. His contribution extends to not only domestic but international sport. His reward with the accolade of knighthood brought a great deal of pleasure to his many friends and acquaintances. Sport in Britain will certainly be the poorer for his decision to retire from the important position he held.

It is perhaps a demonstration of how small and intimate is the sporting community in the United Kingdom, that Mr. Craig Reedie--who will replace Sir Arthur Gold--and I entered Glasgow university together in 1959. We read arts and then law together. Indeed, he still gives me certain financial advice. If his financial advice to the British Olympic Association was as good as his advice to me, the BOA was in good hands.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has left, because I wanted to take up with him the South African rugby tour. He displayed what I might describe not unfairly as a certain degree of insensitivity when he referred to the tour as the springbok tour. Precisely that description caused so much offence to people in the African National Congress. It conceives, not least as a result of the playing of national anthems, and the appearance that no visible change has taken place since the constitutional discussions commenced in South Africa, that the rugby authorities and the rugby community in South Africa are unwilling to recognise that substantial constitutional change is afoot.

The House should recognise the maturity and sound common sense of the ANC. It created the circumstances in which the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was compelled to withdraw his early-day motion. The ANC has behaved with great responsibility in the matter. All it had to do was to endorse what was being said. We might well have seen scenes such as those that some of us remember from the previous South African rugby tour. I stand fairly and squarely behind the Gleneagles agreement, and have always done so. Whatever one feels about the argument, those scenes were an unfortunate feature of an international sporting event in this country.

Column 1283

I think that I heard the hon. Member for Luton, North--I shall examine the Official Report, with great care-- acknowledge that the sport boycott had been effective in provoking constitutional change in South Africa.

Next Section

Home Page