Sports Fields and Recreational Facilities Bill (Hansard, 25 January 1985)

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There will be some disappointment outside this place that we are allowed so little time on this important subject. However, I hope to be able to cover a fair amount of the Bill in the short time that is available to me. The Bill has the support of many colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. It has also the support and sponsorship of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association, the Football Association, the London Sports Council Standing Committee, the Fair Play for Children organisation and many other community groups and individuals who have been in touch with me over the past few weeks. In particular, I give a word of thanks to Mr. Peter Lawson, the general secretary of the CCPR, and Mr. Nigel Hook, its technical officer, who have given me enormous help in preparing the Bill.
Some concern has been expressed in this place and outside for some time that some of our playing fields and sports fields are at risk to the developers. The CCPR produced a leaflet some months ago entitled "Sports Fields at Risk", which was circulated to virtually every hon. Member. There are fields that are owned by local education authorities and used by schools, fields that are owned by private commercial companies, fields that are owned by nationalised industries and fields that are owned by Government agencies, including the Ministry of Defence. The Bill seeks to encourage the dual use of these fields. It takes up a Conservative party manifesto commitment and, indeed, commitments which have been entered into by both the Conservative and Labour parties over the years. It seeks to widen our knowledge of how many of the fields are at risk and how many are being put up for development. It seeks also to form a sports register that will be similar to the land register, which will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to know precisely the amount of land that is being used for recreation and for sport. Such a register will give him a greater opportunity to implement effective monitoring.
The House will be aware that school playing fields are regulated under Department of Education and Science regulation No. 909, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State when he was at the Department of Education and Science. The regulation is designed to reassess the need for playing fields for pupils and access to those facilities. It provides a definite requirement that schoolchildren should have a certain area of playing facilities.
A problem has arisen over the past few years, which is quite understandable. As school rolls begin to fall, and continue to fall, certain education authorities may take the opportunity to use the decline as an excuse to develop the land that is now used as playing fields. This has put the playing fields at risk. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in November 1981 in the course of a speech at Bournemouth: In the longer term, I accept that the total area of playing fields at schools may well be reduced. That is the problem that we face.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I understand that there is a problem of time, and I hope that the Government will not take advantage of it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be feasible for local authorities in the position that he has described to make surplus playing fields available for youth and adult recreation, and that there is no obligation on them to make playing fields available for residential or other development?

§ Mr. Carlisle
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he reads the later part of my Bill, he will find that that is covered by clause 4.
There is concern that, as school rolls fall—they are falling considerably in some areas—there will be great temptation to sell off the land for development. There is even greater concern that, as the rolls start to rise, as undoubtedly they will, although admittedly not to previous levels, the fields will have gone, and gone for ever.
It is remarkable that since the Bill was launched in December I have had several instances put before me where local authorities have put up land for sale, to the detriment of the needs of those living in the local areas. For example, at Beeston, Nottinghamshire, the Roundhill playing fields, comprising about 1.53 acres, were proposed for development by the local authority. This has caused great consternation among the local residents and a large petition has been collected. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has become involved in the campaign. The campaigners voice the fears of many others in similar situations. They lacked knowledge because of the secrecy of the council. They argue that the amenity will be lost for ever and that the first that they learnt of the proposal was from information in the press.
Instances have also been mentioned to me by Members from Sussex, Derbyshire, Shrewsbury, Cambridgeshire and south Glamorgan, and many more can be cited. There are certainly too many to ignore. That is one of the reasons why the Bill has been introduced.
The problem is perhaps most acute in inner city areas. Members from London constituencies will be interested to hear that a couple of days ago I received a letter from the head of the physical education department of a comprehensive school in Brixton referring to the risk of depriving future generations of the pleasure of playing on grass pitches and thereby condemning them to the concrete jungle. He goes on to talk about poor and unrealistic facilities and says that some clubs in the area are now running fewer teams due to the lack of facilities. I am sure that many local councils in London are now under great pressure from residents to retain existing playing fields and sports facilities. Further difficulties may have been caused by the recent ILEA edict that schoolchildren should not travel more than 20 minutes from their school for outside activities, which may mean that children from some schools never play on a grass pitch.
Time precludes my listing the many other owners of sports fields, including nationalised industries, London Regional Transport, British Rail and the Ministry of Defence. One must ask the Government whether any of those bodies is under instruction to sell because of the financial constraints understandably imposed upon them.
The largest proportion of playing fields are owned by private companies and are under real threat. It is difficult to deal with this through legislation beyond merely seeking to persuade companies not to sell off their facilities. The 1304 number of employees may have fallen considerably, and the firm's viability may depend upon selling off the playing fields. In this context, I welcome the approach made by my hon. Friend the Minister to the 100 top employers in this country and the good response that he received. They have shown great co-operation with his initiative and I hope that he will continue that worthwhile exercise.
The Bill consists of four modest clauses. Clause 1 encourages the dual use of facilities. Here, research is encouraging and there is no doubt that some local authorities have taken heed of the efforts of previous Governments and the CCPR to encourage the sharing of facilities among local community groups. The facilities may not be exactly suitable for those who wish to use them, and extra costs may arise in relation to caretakers, groundsmen and so on, but I am encouraged to note that many firms and schools have taken on board the concept of multiple use.
We must consider how we may better publicise the idea of multiple use and encourage schools and private companies to put forward their own ideas and encourage more local sports clubs to use the existing facilities. It is sad to note that in Birmingham, for example, the local county football association has had to refuse 44 applications from clubs wishing to join the league because there are not enough pitches. One wonders whether pitches are in fact available in schools and private grounds, but are being held back for some reason. There is no doubt that the demand for these pitches exists. My Bill does not seek to compel schools or private companies to make them available, but if they are not made available the time for compulsion may come.

§ Mr. Colin Moynihan (Lewisham, East)
Should not the Bill be regarded as a step towards increasing participation in sport, by retaining facilities that might otherwise be lost?

§ Mr. Carlisle
My hon. Friend is right. Existing facilities should be retained—that is the guts of the Bill. In certain areas of the country—I do not want to raise a national alarm—there is a real threat, and such facilities are now subject to the ambitions of the developer and the builder.
The second clause provides for the notification of the development that is to take place and makes it obligatory that the issuing of a certificate under the existing planning legislation should be notified to interested sports bodies. That would put an end to the accusations of secrecy that have been made, and, in a sensitive area, would clear the air. Local newspapers would carry large advertisements of the fact that the land was to be developed. The clause would ensure full public knowledge of the opinions and intentions of local authorities and others interested and, I hope, provide an opportunity for consultation. Clause 2 also provides that the Secretary of State should be notified of any impending development.
Clause 3 suggests the formation of a sports register. It gives the Secretary of State the opportunity—nothing more — to compile a sports register if he thinks fit. Previous attempts to compile a sports register have foundered for various reasons. In 1977 the Department of the Environment issued a document entitled "Amenity Grasslands" which listed the areas of grassland in 1305 existence. The regional sports councils also attempted to make their own survey some years ago, but got bogged down.
It is important that such a register should be compiled. It could be administered by existing machinery, perhaps through the Sports Council, which is in a way an arm of Government, or through the CCPR, which has already said that it would be prepared to run the register. All inspections of the register would be paid for by the inspectors, and in that way, I hope, the overall cost could be kept down. I do not want to increase Government expenditure.
Clause 4 is brief. It is intended to make more land available to sporting charities. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to this problem. The clause would help to ensure that the profits of the sales of grounds are devoted only to sporting purposes. It should be of benefit to the National Playing Fields Association and other charitable organisations.
The Bill forms part of the process of encouraging people to participate more actively in sports. We should encourage the Sports Council, which has been responsible for various campaigns, including, recently, "Ever Thought of Sport?". We should be a more active nation. About £0.5 million was spent on that campaign, and it would be a tragedy if the fields and pitches were not available for those influenced by it.
The Bill would ensure also that future generations of schoolchildren have the opportunity to play on grass pitches. Local education authorities must be aware that school rolls will rise again, and they must take care before they offer surplus land for development.
Lastly, I want to arrest the decline in the national sporting arena. Our great national sports, such as cricket, association football and rugby football, have suffered over the years for various reasons, including perhaps the lack of grass pitches. We have plenty of hard pitches and indoor facilities. I hope that the Bill, if passed, will improve our national and international sporting status

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
The Opposition welcome the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The only pity is that the hon. Gentleman had not been converted to this course by 1980. Prior to the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, much of the land was protected. Following the passage of that Act, it has been easy to dispose of land vitally needed for sport and recreation.
We are happy to support the hon. Gentleman, but I wish that he had been converted a little earlier. As a result of changes made by the Government, local authorities are giving themselves planning permission and then selling the land at its enhanced value. That would not have been possible before the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It is clear that much land, especially in the London area, is threatened. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment knows that land near Cheam in his constituency is affected. The same is true for London, Edgware and London, Richmond. There is a long list—