Sport in Schools

HC Deb 28 February 1991 vol 186 cc1211-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

10 pm

Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde)

This is a timely debate, as I am sure the Minister will concede, because it will give him the opportunity to shine. I gave him such an opportunity on another occasion not so long ago, and he did not exactly succeed, although I was kind to him because he was still in his honeymoon period.

Since then, the Minister has had a chance to go round and listen to the various problems that are confronting our sports men and women. Last week, for example, the Minister visited my constituency and spoke to the North West Council for Sport and Recreation. He heard of the positive results being obtained in my local authority area of Tameside through a nationally recognised demonstration project at Hyde high school—one of the many innovative ventures being undertaken under the Tameside sports initiative, which has been established by the Sports Council and Tameside's leisure and education departments to develop links between schools, community groups and sporting organisations. The House will expect a more informed reply from the Minister tonight.

I was not one of those who thought that the move of the Minister's post from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science was sensible, although I was hopeful in one respect: I thought that it would give him a chance to promote sport in schools. The Minister will know that I have often argued that, without the elevation of the post of Sports Minister, mere departmental moves are of little consequence. Only this week I argued that point in the Sports Council magazine, Sport and Leisure and although I do not wholly agree with the Sports Council's latest views on the role of the Sports Minister, I welcome the fact that they are moving in my direction. I trust that the Minister will take those views into account in his current review of sport.

I am sure that the Minister will have found that, as a result of his lowly status, many of his own initiatives fall well down the queue when it comes to priorities for Government action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Atkins)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Pendry

I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me.

Hence we have the delay, revealed to me in answer to a written question 10 days ago, in the publication of the joint Department of the Environment and Department of Education and Science practical guidance booklet on the dual use of educational facilities, which should have been published early last year. Even worse is the Government's outright rejection of the recommendation of the Minister's predecessor's review group on inner-city sport that responses to the document from all local education authorities should be published, together with an implementation timetable for proposed new schemes.

I do not automatically blame the Minister for those failures, but he must pledge to the House that he will use his position in the Department of Education and Science to push for the earliest production of the booklet, together with the implementation of his review group's recommendations.

Let me give the House an example of the uphill task facing the Minister in his new Department. On the first day of his appointment, the Minister promised in The Times that he would involve himself in a development of physical education in schools at all levels. Since then, he must have found that his new Department lacks even the most basic facts, as I found to my cost when the Department could not answer some very basic parliamentary questions.

The Department could not provide me with information such as an estimate of the number and size of school playing fields; details of the number of schoolchildren and young persons participating in sporting activities; the average time devoted to sport and recreation in schools; or the provision for teacher training in physical education, although the Minister will have discovered that his Department has closed the last of our free-standing colleges of physical education.

The House is aware that I am a fair man and I want to put on the record one success story for the Minister. He has at least convinced his boss to set up a register of playing fields. We must congratulate him on that—[interruption]—although he does not seem to want to accept that accolade. The downside of that success story is that the Sports Council believes that the register will not be operable for another two or three years. That is clearly unacceptable and the Minister must speed up the timetable.

Given the Government's past indifference to school sport, it is no wonder that the Secondary Heads Association and the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which take their responsibilities to our children seriously and have investigated the state of sport in our schools, have found it seriously wanting. They have revealed that the number of pupils under 14 who have fewer than two hours of PE a week almost doubled over the past three years, from 38 per cent. to a staggering 71 per cent.

Over the same period, seven out of 10 state schools suffered decreases in weekend sporting activity, and 62 per cent. suffered decreases at lunchtime and after school hours. Should the Minister be tempted to shift the blame for that state of affairs from his Department, he should ponder the fact that an overwhelming 83 per cent. of schools gave the additional work load on teachers as a result of the Government's national curriculum and the GCSE as the No.1 reason for the parlous state of our schools.

How can the Minister's promise to develop PE in schools be taken seriously without additional resources? it cannot be taken seriously if the Secretary of State's response to the interim report of the national curriculum working group on PE is anything to go by. In a response of just 11 paragraphs, he has produced no fewer than 10 proposals for either the outright rejection or the watering down of the working group's positive and well-thought-out recommendations.

Time does not allow me to outline in full that regrettably cool response, but we demand an urgent explanation from the Minister about several areas. For example, the Government want convincing arguments against slashing one third from the working group's recommended programmes of study for pupils up to the age of 14. That could cause them to miss out on athletics, gymnastics or dance. That proposal should be put the other way round: what arguments can the Minister advance to justify such a cut?

The Government's refusal to guarantee children at least one outdoor residential experience during their time at school or particularly to back the recommendation that all children should be taught to swim 25 metres and possess basic water skills by the age of 11 is also disappointing to the extreme.

It is not good enough for the Government to cloak that in arguments about possible resource implications without coming up with a more positive response. The Minister's answers will be of great interest to the House and to every concerned parent. They will be particularly interesting because the Amateur Swimming Association states that the number of school-aged children who have died by drowning has tripled over the past three years. Two hundred or so childen under 15 have died by drowning over that period, and 80 per cent. of them could not swim. The Minister and the House must agree that that figure is scandalous. The Minister could also acknowledge the distinctive nature of swimming as an educational and not purely a recreational activity, given the safety aspect involved.

The Minister could give a commitment to ensure that, where the necessary resources are available, they are utilised to the full. He could also promise to conduct a survey to reveal precisely where resources are required and how much it would take to fill the gaps. He could also explain why the Government seem to have rejected the working group's recommendation that children should be taught to plan their sporting pursuits and to elevate their performances. Instead, he appears to want them to concentrate solely on activity. That is a recipe for producing headless chickens, not successful sportsmen and women.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State and the Minister have had their feet under the table for only half the time that the working group has been operating. Let us face it: with most of his time taken up in attempts to cobble something together, along with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that will sort out the mess surrounding education spending and the poll tax, and to deal with the shambles surrounding the opting out of schools, and with the headache of trying to find £4 billion to repair our dilapidated schools, he clearly has not had the time to consider the reasoned arguments that have resulted from the working group's five and a half months of careful study into this area. Nevertheless, he must reflect on his undoubtedly hasty response.

Let us hope that the Government will listen to the views of experts in this matter rather than ignoring them and thus threatening the physical education of our children. I do not wish to be churlish, because I have some sympathy with the Minister's plight. I know that he must be slavish to the whims of the Secretary of State who, again, has told the working group that it is hard to understand attainment targets such as "Planning and Composing", "Participating and Performing", or "Appreciating and Evaluating". I do not know what words the Secretary of State or the Minister understand—perhaps "thinking, doing, and thinking again" meet their criteria. However, what I do know is that the Secretary of State's attitude has infuriated all those with an interest in PE in this country.

Chris Laws, the chairman of the Standing Conference on PE in Teacher Education, a body that represents the higher education institutions in this country, has condemned the Secretary of State's attitude, saying that it only highlights his own lack of attempt to understand the language of teaching physical education … To suggest that the words used will not be readily understood by non-specialist teachers, parents and pupils is patronising and further illustrates his own inability to come to terms with the nature of physical education. What hope do our teachers and children have if the Secretary of State is so manifestly ignorant about their sporting and recreational needs? If he was a little less dogmatic about what he wants the working group to do and say and what he does not, it might help him to come clean and tell us the precise role that he sees for sport and PE for children once they reach the age of 14.

Having been forced to withdraw his threat to drop PE from the compulsory national curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds, the Secretary of State could then only give a commitment to support a "particularly flexible definition" of PE. Yet only last week, when I asked the Minister of State to tell me what activities would make up that flexible definition, he was unable to do so. Now the Secretary of State has outlined in his response an equally vague commitment to sport or other activity of a sensible kind", again without explaining what that means.

The Minister has a duty tonight to tell us plainly and unequivocally what the Government mean by those woolly expressions. If he does not, the frustration and anger felt by many in the sporting world towards the Government over this issue will continue to mount.

I am aware that I have given the Minister a shopping list of answers that I require from him tonight, but it is not an exhaustive list, as he well knows. I hope that he will take this opportunity of showing his independence and will give the House a more positive response to the well-argued and considered recommendations of the curriculum working group than has his Secretary of State, together with firm proposals to tackle our schoolchildren's urgent sporting needs.

My party is determined to take its responsibilities seriously, as its record shows. My only hope is that the Minister will listen to our arguments carefully in the interests of everyone in the country who values and recognises the importance of sport in our schools.

10.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Atkins)

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on obtaining an opportunity to raise the matter of sport in schools. He has a well-deserved reputation for knowing a considerable amount about sport. Therefore, I find it extraordinary that he raises matters which simply conflict with the facts as I am learning them in this job.

We agree that there is some element of problem in sports in schools—I shall address that in a moment—but I find it a bit rich that the hon. Gentleman and his party suggest that any lack of competitive sport in schools is the fault of the Government, when many Labour education authorities around the country have taken against competitive team sports in schools and contributed signally to a reduction in competitive sport in schools by so doing. When we attribute blame, we should do so fairly.

I now wish to talk about the issues as I see them. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot deal with all of them in the space of a brief Adjournment debate. None the less, I shall do what I can.

Sport in schools is undoubtedly the foundation for continued sporting activity by millions of young people in adult life. It is also the basis of excellence in sporting achievement. The majority of those who excel at particular sports have developed their skill while at school. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the importance of providing young people with a wide range of sporting opportunities during their time at school, for it is the linchpin on which depends the development of health life styles by the population as a whole and determines in large part the success or failure of our international sports men and women.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that my move to the Department of Education and Science clearly demonstrates the importance that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State attach to sport in schools. Of course I recognise that the transfer of responsibilities alone is meaningless without policies and actions to back it up. None the less, I hope that he will feel that, during the time that I hold this office, I demonstrate to him and the sporting world that the move will benefit sport, rather than the reverse.

Perhaps the most important limb of our policy on school sport, on which the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length, is the inclusion of physical education in the national curriculum. PE is now a compulsory subject for all pupils in maintained schools between the ages of five and 16. It is the first time that PE has been a statutory requirement. The Government resisted pressures to make the subject optional, particularly at key stage 4 of the national curriculum. That is the first achievement that I and the Secretary of State made since our move to the Department of Education and Science.

Of course, a distinction must be made between what we mean by physical education in the curriculum and the overall place of sport in schools. There is no doubt that PE should include a significant amount of sport, including competitive team games. I was glad to see a recognition of that in the interim report of the PE working group, which stated: we regard competitive games, both individual and team, as an essential part of physical education. These elements of physical education were addressed in different ways in the interim report of the PE working group.

The hon. Gentleman painted an unnecessarily negative picture of what the Secretary of State said on that interim report. It was inevitable that the Secretary of State would respond on matters which caused him anxiety, rather than matters with which he agreed. The working party is fully apprised of the position by me and the Secretary of State, and is aware that we believe that the objective of elevating the status of physical education and especially of PE teachers is paramount if we are to address the subject properly in future.

The arguments which the Secretary of State raised dealt with the language used. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments or those in the letter which he quoted that we were being patronising by suggesting that the language of the report needed to be that which ordinary parents and the constituents of both the hon. Gentleman and myself could understand. But the objective of the report is one with which we do not disagree.

The report made a number of recommendations which would have considerable resource implications were they to be implemented in full—relating, for example, to a recommended residential experience for all pupils, as well as dance, outdoor education and swimming tuition, all being statutory requirements within the national curriculum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise only too well the full and important value of all those activities, but we do not believe that residential experience needs to be compulsory, whether in PE or in any other area of the curriculum.

In my view, it would have been utterly irresponsible for the Government to have accepted those recommendations without any understanding of the costs involved. It would also have been foolhardy in the extreme. Perhaps it would not be surprising for the Opposition to commit so willingly the taxpayers' money without any appreciation of the sums involved. The House will appreciate that the Government do not act in the profligate way in which spokesmen for the Opposition frequently do when seeking to attract the electorate, offering promises that they have not costed.

I look forward to receiving the final recommendations of the working group in due course. They are to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of June of this year. The interim report has now been issued for consultation. I am confident that the report will generate comments from a wide range of interests and that the eventual outcome will be significantly to raise the standard of physical education, including sport, provided in our schools.

While provision in some schools is already of a high standard, there is no doubt that the quantity and quality overall is not at the level that we would wish. The introduction of the national curriculum is all about raising standards in all schools to those of the best. I am sure that that will be achieved for physical education in the same way as for any other subject.

I am concerned not only with PE and sport in the school curriculum. I want to see an increasing range of opportunities for young people to take part in sport outside the curriculum. Concerns have been expressed, inside and outside the House, about the decline in extra-curricular school sport. That is one reason why sport for young people is one of the main issues being considered as part of my current review of sports policy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from what has been said on previous occasions when he has raised the matter, the position of the Minister of Sport, whoever he or she may be, is one of those considerations, and I am always grateful for any suggestion that can elevate my status, if not my pay.

Before we provide the answers, we need to acknowledge some of the reasons for the present situation. I recognise that, over the years, there has been a reduction in the amount of time that teachers have felt able to devote on a voluntary basis to providing sports opportunities outside school hours. That is not to say that such activity no longer takes place. On the contrary, many teachers continue to be heavily involved, and I take this opportunity—as I have on previous occasions, and will continue to do—to pay tribute to the many teachers, PE teachers or not, and often not, who devote a great deal of time, at times when it is not always convenient to them, to encouraging, coaching and training youngsters after school. I recognise that dedication, and all those involved in sport generally understand and appreciate it highly.

Even so, there has been a reduction in that area of activity, and it is a cause for some concern. One factor is the pupils themselves. I know, as the parent of a 15-year-old daughter, that for her and her friends, there is a wide range of opportunities available outside their activities in school. Many of them have Saturday jobs, while others take advantage of local community schemes or join the junior sections of their local clubs. We do not want to discourage any of those activities, but we must recognise that they are increasingly militating against pupils being involved in school-based activities, particularly out of hours.

Various ways forward have been proposed. The introduction of directed time has prompted suggestions that teachers should receive extra payment for undertaking extra-curricular sporting activities. Teachers have traditionally been involved in extra-curricular sport, as I said, and I see no reason why that should not continue, but we have also given local authorities and, where appropriate, school governing bodies the power to award teachers taking on extra responsibilities one of five incentive allowances worth up to £5,500, which will rise to just over £7,000 from 1 December of this year. Organising and supervising sporting activities might be one of the responsibilities to which I referred, and the opportunity is there for financial recognition to be given.

However, we need to widen the focus of the debate beyond the teacher and the school. We cannot turn back the clock to the days, if they ever existed, when schools carried the sole responsibility for providing sporting opportunities outside the school day. I want to encourage even greater diversity of provision involving local sports clubs, leisure centres, local industry and, of course, organisations such as the Sports Council.

Much excellent work is already going on and we should not underestimate that when addressing the problems. The Lawn Tennis Association Trust is promoting short tennis in schools and sports clubs across the country. The Rugby Football Union is currently spending more than £1 million a year promoting the game among young people, contributing to the cost of 20 youth development officers. In London the London Community Cricket Association, whose tie I am proud to wear, with help from the Sports Council, employs three development officers. They are working with primary and middle schools in inner-city areas to introduce pupils to cricket through programmes of indoor coaching throughout the winter. The LCCA deserves to be congratulated on that.

I want to see further such schemes, and I am looking at what more can be done to encourage that to happen. With this and other issues in mind, we will shortly invite a range of organisations involved in both physical education and sport to a consultative conference on sport and young people. That will allow people with a wide variety of interests and activities to express their point of view to me and the Secretary of State. I hope that we will be able to build on that.

Mr. Pendry

Does the Minister propose to write to me on the specific points in my shopping list?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I shall write to him on any details not covered now.

There is one matter to which I can respond—the dual use of school sports facilities. I do not think that he and I are divided on our commitment to dual use facilities, in which I strongly believe. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are preparing a practical guidance booklet for schools and LEAs on dual use, and we hope to publish that shortly. We have identified a legal uncertainty about which we are corresponding with Gloucestershire county council as a loal education authority. The point is about the powers of governors to enter into agreements with third parties.

We are considering how best to approach that problem. I cannot issue immediate advice in the House, because I may need to take further legal advice. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I shall pursue these matters with him. We are still working on the matter and it is rather like trying to turn the QE2 around in two minutes. It is a major problem that must be addressed, and the hon. gentleman is fair enough to recognise that such matters cannot be addressed overnight.

The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has looked at the matter in some depth, and we await its report. Because of the conference and the consultations and discussions that I have had with the Sports Council, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and many other organisations involved in sport at all levels, I think that the commitment is there. That is largely as a result of the immediate and personal interest in sport taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, my boss, also has an interest, in that he is fortunate enough to have Trent Bridge and Nottingham Forest football ground in his constituency and cannot go far without bumping into the subject.

As I have said, there will shortly be a consultative conference on sport and young people and I hope that that will demonstrate, if it needs to be demonstrated, that the Government, my Department and I in particular have a real interest in these matters.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made great play of the interim working party report. Clearly, there is some discussion about the wording, but there is no dissension about the objectives that we both wish to reach. The Secretary of State and I, having come halfway through the discussions undertaken by the working party, had to take up the cudgels halfway through. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall continue to do that, not only in relation to the working party but in terms of the consultative conference. We shall have an interesting frank exchange of views and that will produce a further range of constructive suggestions for action by all the people in this field.

My move to the Department of Education and Science is a clear indication of the priority that the Government place on sport in schools. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes that this important issue should have been drawn to the attention of the House and the country in a more forceful way than has hitherto been the case. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement.

I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for raising this important issue, and I hope that I have demonstrated to him in part that the Government are strongly committed to improving the provision of physical education and sport. The hon. Gentleman understands these matters and was right to draw my attention to the concerns and to press me continuously, as I know he will continue to do, on this matter. Without sport in schools, the future of national sport will not be as great as it ought to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.