| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.16 am
Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde): We rejoice whenever there is a debate on sport, and of course we do so today. However, the debate is once more on a Friday and we know of hon. Members with a keen interest in sport who are unable to be here because of other commitments. I refer particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who kindly dropped me a note to say that he would not be attending. We all know that he loves sport and that he was a great participant. He has a long-standing engagement, but I am sure that his colleague, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), will be an able substitute and we look forward to hearing his speech.
My long-term adversary, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), is also unable to attend. He can always be relied on to make a lively contribution. I generally leave the Chamber with a few daggers in my back; at least I shall be saved from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) cannot be here because she is away on parliamentary business, so we shall not be able to hear her usual contribution. There are others who cannot attend on a Friday, so it is a shame that the Minister has not been able to break the mould of holding sports debates on a Friday, despite our urging him to do so. Perhaps he will have another go at persuading the Leader of the House so that we can have a larger attendance and, perhaps, more informed speeches as a result.
When the debate was announced, I welcomed it, believing that surely this time the Minister would give us a nugget or two, a gem or two or an idea or two that was different. Alas, we have heard the same old ideas, most of which have emanated from bodies other than the Government. Listening to the Minister, one would have thought that some other party had been in power for the past 17 years. We cannot avoid party politics. It may be regrettable, but we cannot get away from it in a debate of this kind. The Minister used words such as "encourage" and "strongly urge" and we heard, "We shall find out what the Department for Education and Employment is saying." That is all pretty woolly and we expected something different from the Minister. Nothing changes and I will point out later why the Department of National Heritage misses its own targets.
The Minister must not take my remarks personally. We recognise that he at least recognises--he has said so in his speech this morning--that his Government have been pretty awful in this matter. There will have been much rejoicing in heaven as a result of the Minister's conversion on the road to Damascus. The Opposition certainly welcome it.
Today's debate gives us the perfect opportunity to assess the state of sport almost a year after the publication of the Government's document "Raising the Game".I make no apology for blaming the Government for the deficiencies that the Minister highlighted.
The Minister will recall that, when we debated the issue last October, I gave a guarded welcome to some of the measures contained in that document. As I pointed out then, it was a patchwork quilt of good ideas, but it lacked overall strategic direction. Nothing has changed since then, despite the Minister's speech. In any case, the good ideas contained in the document were stolen from various bodies apart from the Labour party--the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the British Olympic Association, the National Playing Fields Association and the Sports Council. At least it was a start. After 17 years in power, having blamed everybody but themselves for the state of British sport, the Government finally issued a paper and, to be fair to the Minister, he has outlined out some of the deficiencies.
Some might say that it is better late than never, but we were promised a White Paper. In last year's debate, the Minister gave a spurious reason why the document was not a White Paper--that a White Paper would be too expensive for many people to buy--but that did not fool anyone in the sports world. The Government clearly intended to send a glossy document free of charge to as many people as possible, in the hope that they would not rumble the fact that the ideas were not the Government's own. As I said in last year's debate, we do not mind the Government pinching other people's ideas--indeed, we welcome it--but they should at least acknowledge them.
Mr. Hawkins:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He might be interested in the reaction of one leading sports administrator to the Labour press release earlier this week. That very distinguished gentleman said:
Mr. Pendry:
We do not know who that distinguished gentleman is. I was coming to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier and has now raised again. We were told that the Government would be following up the document next month with "Raising the Game 2". It will give details of the progress that has been made in the past year. If that is the case, it will be shortest document ever published by any Government--not that there has been any unwillingness to assist the Minister on the part of teachers, parents, the voluntary sector, sports governing bodies, local authorities or any of the myriad of other groups providing sporting opportunities for young people. What is missing is the Government's commitment to back up even the meagre promises that they made in "Raising the Game".
What has been done in the past year? In March, the Minister decided that it was a good idea to release a press statement giving details about the progress that has been made so far. Let us examine what he said. The Minister promised a survey of sporting provision in schools to be published in April. Now we are told that it will appear on 15 July. Of course, we are still waiting for that survey. Given the slippages that have occurred in the past, we would be surprised if it came out on 15 July.
The Minister promised, following consultation, to make the Sports Council a statutory consultee on playing field sales, but the town and country planning legislation has yet to be amended accordingly. In any case, is the Sports Council the right body to act on playing field sales? It is, after all, a Government quango; surely a more independent body, and one dedicated solely to promoting the use of recreational space, would be the National Playing Fields Association.
The Minister promised more emphasis on team games when he knows full well that three quarters of the responses to the Government's consultation paper on making competitive games compulsory at key stage 4 were opposed to the idea. Even The Daily Telegraph considered that proposal to be clearly wrong.
The Minister promised extra support for elite athletes. That is a good idea, not least because it was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland(Dr. Cunningham), who, as long ago as October last year, urged the Secretary of State to set up talent funds. It can be found in the Official Report of 25 October at column 1032.
The Minister will also remember that I wrote to him last year asking for more support for our top athletes. Although it is warming to know that the Government are paying close attention to our speeches and letters, it is a pity that the Minister did not respond to our initiative more quickly. Had he done so, the talent fund could have been up and running in time to help our athletes who are flying the flag in Atlanta this summer. Because of the Government's delay, however, gifted athletes will not have access to the funds until next January. That is an absolute disgrace. It will be far to late to help competitors who are in need now. I have written to the Minister urging him to assist further, but I have yet to receive a response and it certainly was not forthcoming today.
The Minister also promised a national junior sports programme. I welcome the Sports Council initiative to encourage participation by youngsters; however, that will put extra demand on Sports Council finances at the same time as the Government have knocked £2.3 million off the Sports Council's budget. The Government have demonstrated their support for grass-roots support by cutting the funding to a much praised initiative to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred--the sportsmatch scheme--by 15 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to the Minister about that. The Government's real agenda is to give with one hand and take away with the other.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
Will the hon. Gentleman say where when he stands on team games? He seems to avoid commenting on team games while criticising what others have said. Where do he and his party stand?
Mr. Pendry:
The hon. Gentleman generally takes a close interest in such matters; I am surprised, therefore, that he missed those gems from the Labour party. The Opposition have always been in favour of team games. However, we are not in favour of compulsory team games. We have always said that there should be a mix of games within schools. When certain Labour local authorities rejected the idea of team games, we made strong representations to them.
It is all right for the Minister to recognise the fundamental truth of the importance of sport in schools, but the Government's record fills me with dismay. As the
Minister said, it is the most important part of the sport pyramid where children first learn about sport and develop their interest in physical activity, yet it is the weakest link in the Government's sport chain. That may well have something to do with the Department for Education and Employment.
Let us look at the facts. The latest annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools noted that in more40 per cent. of primary schools, PE standards were not sound. That is backed up by the latest Office for Standards in Education report on physical education. Inspectors found:
The Secondary Heads Association reported that between 1987 and 1994 there was a decline of more than three quarters in extra-curricular sports fixtures mainly due to the increased work loads of teachers implementing the national curriculum. The Ofsted survey of good practice of PE in schools reports:
"There is nothing new in Labour's proposals. They can't have read the Government document. They are trying to make political mileage out of nothing."
The hon. Gentleman hijacks responses to Government documents because he has nothing new to say.
"Many primary schools teachers lack subject knowledge in physical education and are not confident that they can meet the requirements of the National Curriculum . . . Very few schools have adequate changing facilities."
The position does not improve by the time children reach secondary school where, according to the same report
"Many schools have dirty changing rooms in a poor state of repair with inadequate facilities for showering."
What progress have the Government made over the past year to improve the conditions and standards in those schools? I suggest that it is very little. The Minister spoke about PE teachers. There are no free-standing physical education colleges left in Britain. According to the Health Education Authority and the Sports Council, the number of PE teachers has almost halved from 41,800 in 1977 to just 24,000 in 1992. What measures are the Government implementing to increase the number--the hon. Gentleman never mentioned numbers--of PE teachers back to the pre-1979 level? Surely that would be of major benefit to British sport.
"Any failure to regain fully the position of the early 1980s resulted from the decision of many non-specialist teachers in secondary schools not to return to involvement in extra sporting activities."
Since then, there has been yet another threat to extra-curricular school sports. I hope that the Minister is listening, because he must be aware of the statement made by the National Union of Teachers on 20 May threatening to boycott extra sporting activity. If he remembers, I brought it to his attention in Question Time on that very day and urged him to be proactive and bring together teachers and local education authorities to resolve the potentially damaging dispute.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |