§ 3. Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the sporting, recreational and leisure provision currently made by the Greater London council and metropolitan counties will continue following abolition of those authorities.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane)As I said in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 21 November, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April our plans for sport and recreation following the dissolution of the GLC. Responsibility for these matters will pass to the boroughs. The Sports Council will have additional funds to assist with projects of wider than local interest.
§ Mr. PendryDoes the Minister recognise that that is a complacent reply which will disappoint hundreds of thousands of people who live within the Greater London council and metropolitan council areas and who look to him to fight his corner on their behalf to ensure that sport and recreation provision is maintained after abolition? Does he further recognise that the GLC has spent more than £40 million on that provision and that the metropolitan counties have spent an equivalent sum? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take note of the action of his colleague the Minister for the Arts, who is fighting his corner for those whom he represents? If the Minister did that, perhaps even he would end up in the Cabinet.
§ Mr. MacfarlaneThe hon. Gentleman is getting a little over-excited about some matters. If he looks at the record for recent years he will find that since 1979 the Government have increased grant-in-aid by 100 per cent. to the Sports Council, and have provided infinitely more 913 money than previous Governments did for the urban aid programme—between £16 million and £23 million in the past few years.
Only in the last 12 to 18 months has the GLC started to show some interest in sport in the metropolis. The London boroughs and the metropolitan districts are infinitely better prepared to know what is required at local level. The GLC has only come along later to shell out our constituents' money for wrong projects.
§ Sir Hector MonroWill my hon. Friend assure me that, whoever controls sport and recreation in London, better facilities and coaching will be provided in order to improve the standard of English cricket?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneI take note of what my hon. Friend said. He has experience of these matters. I have no doubt that he is well satisfied with the standard of Scottish rugby. Let us hope that that will be enacted next week.
§ Mr. CartwrightIn view of the spectre of rate-capping that hangs over the London boroughs and metropolitan districts, will the Minister assure the House that grant-related expenditure assessments for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts will be altered to guarantee them the resources needed to provide the leisure, recreation and sports facilities now provided by the GLC and metropolitan counties?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneThe hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. That is why the Government have ensured that the funding for sport and recreation has not been lost in recent years. Normal adjustments to the rate support grant will be made after abolition. However, I have to tell the House that no specific increase will be introduced solely in respect of sport and recreation. These matters will be adjusted.
§ Mr. MoynihanI recognise the importance of providing sport and leisure facilities in London, but does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial amount of work has already been done, and is planned to continue to be done, by the boroughs, the governing bodies and, above all, the Sports Council?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneMy hon. Friend is right. The strategy which has been produced by the Sports Council and the regional councils on sports and recreation, which will be able to take on a great deal of work after abolition in March 1986, has been responsible for identifying the paucity of facilities in certain areas.
§ Mr. WareingDoes the Minister realise that much of the assistance given by the metropolitan counties comes from sponsored companies, such as Merseyside Improvements Ltd., which not only provide jobs, but work to a reasonable standard for many of the sporting organisations? Can the Minister guarantee that those organisations will continue to be provided with such assistance after the abolition of the metropolitan county councils?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneI am always anxious to encourage sponsorship of any sort for anything to do with sport, leisure and recreation, and it is precisely because of the Government's policies that we have been able to rejuvenate that on Merseyside.
§ Mr. WallerIs my hon. Friend aware that in West Yorkshire county council area, and no doubt in many others, some metropolitan districts have no representatives 914 on committees responsible for many important functions, and that that could not be the case following abolition? As surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea which functions are the responsibility of the metropolitan county councils, is not existing democratic responsibility a myth, and is it not far more likely to exist after abolition?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneI do not believe that it is far more likely to exist. My right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that important point to ensure that there is no gap after abolition.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThe Minister is appalingly informed about the GLC's contribution to sport. It has been half funding the National Sports Centre since its inception. Is the Minister aware that the GLC gives £8 million a year in grants to sporting bodies? What will he do to ensure that that funding continues, and will he guarantee the future of the London marathon, which, contrary to his information, is supported organisationally by the GLC?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneIf the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of gassing away to his colleagues on the Back Bench, he might learn something. The only contribution that GLC representatives have made to sport in London is to threaten and try to ensure that funds will not reach the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, and to walk out of some committees of the Greater London council. The marathon is a privately run organisation—
§ Mr. Tony BanksNo, Sir, it is not.
§ Mr. Macfarlane—and my Department and my right hon. Friends have given every help to the marathon's organising committee. The marathon is safe with the Conservative Government.
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe marathon may be safe, but the Minister will never run 26 miles and 385 yds if lie continues to answer questions in that way. How can he say that the GLC has made no contribution when it and its predecessor authority were responsible for the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace—it is the only one we have — and it meets the capital, revenue and debt charges of the centre? Who will meet those after abolition? Similar questions could be asked about the Lea Valley sports centre.
Will the Minister confirm that in this year's estimates, not only for the GLC but for the metropolitan counties, £58 million is being spent on sport and recreation? Where will that money come from after abolition? Why can we not have a consultation exercise for sport similar to that for the arts? Will the Minister issue a consultation document so that we can have a sensible, reasonable and intelligent discussion on the future of sports provision?
§ Mr. MacfarlaneI welcome the right hon. Gentleman's return to these affairs after his brief skirmish as a shadow Home Office spokesman. The only evidence in recent months of the GLC's contribution to sport was its spending of much money on poor projects. Its representatives walked out of several committees, and it threatened the National Sports Centre with a complete removal of financial support. Its spending in recent years has been profligate and has been removed from the taxpayers and ratepayers of Greater London. Future funding has yet to be considered, but at present the Sports 915 Council and the regional councils on sport and recreation are well placed, with the London boroughs, to run sport in the metropolis.