Sport

HC Deb 27 November 1991 vol 199 cc973-1022

[Relevant document: fourth report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1990–91 ( HC 155), on sport in schools.]

7.15 pm

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

I beg to move, That this House expresses its concern at the effects of the policies of Her Majesty's Government on the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport and recreation:in this country; deplores the fact that the Minister's review initiated four years ago into the organisation and financing of sport has still not reported; regrets the serious decline of school sport and the proper supply of physical education teachers which should be seen as the foundation upon which all United Kingdom sport is established; condemns the appalling effects of Government policies and financing which have seriously damaged sports services provided by local authorities and educational authorities, undermining the right of all children to learn to swim, and of all citizens to enjoy their chosen leisure pursuits; condemns the lack of leadership provided by the Government for the development of United Kingdom sport and the promotion of major international sports events such as the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and world events; and endorses the policies set out in the Labour party's `Charter for Sport'. This debate is long overdue. The Government are so ashamed of their record on sport that in the 12 years during which they have held office they have never initiated a debate on sport, unless we count debates on tragedies such as Bradford and Hillsborough and such phoney solutions as the Football Spectators Act 1989, which is now totally discredited along with the Minister who foisted it on the nation.

We are debating the motion because British sport is suffering from the effects of 12 years of neglect. The sports provision by local government—the main provider of facilities for the millions of our people who simply enjoy the pleasure of sport—has been decimated by the Government's onslaught. Sport in schools has been devastated. Playing fields desperately needed by the whole community have been sold off, developed and lost for ever. Physical education colleges have been closed and there is a shortage of qualified teachers. There are hardly any qualified physical education teachers in primary schools and the place for physical education in the school curriculum is wholly inadequate. As we warned, privatisation has barred from sports halls and swimming baths the very people whom we should be attracting into them. In sport, privatisation is a total failure.

In professional sport, football has benefited from the Football Trust, which was created by Labour, although the Government, to their credit, extended support based on the principles that we had established. The Government have done nothing for cricket, hockey, athletics, rugby league, rugby union and other principal spectator sports.

There has been no leadership in international sport. How could there be with five Ministers in 12 years? There was no help for the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, no help for the Sheffield world student games and no help for the Birmingham or Manchester Olympic bids" The verdict of British sport on the Government's record will be that it is helpless and hopeless.

As the general election draws near, a new hope and a new realism is available for sport and we set it all out in Labour's "Charter for Sport", which the motion endorses. Already it has been welcomed on all sides. [Interruption.] I am glad that other people have a copy of the charter. As a result, we shall no doubt have a more educated contribution from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). The charter was drawn up after consultation with sport and it expresses the aspirations of sport. I present it to the House with every confidence that it meets the needs of sport.

In contrast to Labour's programme, we have the shameful dithering and procrastination of Tory Ministers. In November 1987, four years ago, the previous Minister announced his review of the organisational and financial arrangements of United Kingdom sport. He made no progress over the next three years. He has disappeared through the turnstile of government marked "exit" and, as befits a man who spent so much time getting nowhere, he has now been sent to the Department of Energy.

The present Minister has held office for 12 years — [Interruption.] I mean 12 months, but it seems like 12 years. There is still no reorganisation in sight, and there is still no report for sport or for Parliament to debate. However, the Minister has not been entirely idle. He has developed a well-deserved reputation as sport's leading chauvinist—and that is saying something. In the week in which the Prime Minister announced his new policy, "Charter 2000", the Minister rejected the recommendation of the Sports Council that he appoint two of the most able women in sport, recreation and education to be chairmen of regional sports councils—Professor Margaret Talbot for Yorkshire and Humberside and Liz Murdock for London and the south-east. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Prime Minister gets to hear about that. No doubt the Minister will plead that he is following Cabinet precedent—"No women here, although we are in favour of the principle."

I hear that the Minister has decided not to have any more formal meetings with the regional chairmen. He will meet them over dinner instead. They feel insulted.

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell

I have a letter to that effect—the Minister had better investigate. No doubt he believes that the intellectual exercise involved in meeting the regional chairmen will be too strenuous for him to undertake. That is a disgraceful way to treat the regions.

Let us consider the results of the Minister's combat with the Treasury to obtain funds for sport—the subject of the Government's amendment. The amendment is fascinating, in that it claims credit for all the money put into sport by everyone else except the Government. That is extraordinary.

In the autumn statement sports funding was increased by 4.4 per cent.—from £46.7 million to £48.7 million. That is the fourth consecutive standstill budget. The Arts Council received a 14.2 per cent. Increase—from £561 million to £610 million. No wonder the chairman of the Sports Council described his grant as a kick in the teeth. No one begrudges our friends in the arts a penny of their grant—they need and deserve it all—but it tells us everything about the Government's attitude to sport.

I have always believed that in essence sport is a cultural pursuit. It provides the occasions on which hundreds of thousands of people experience a sense of pure delight through their own achievements on the sports field or through the superb sporting performance of gifted players.

The Government have no such insight; they allow sport to languish and even to disintegrate, leaving millions of young people to their own devices. Instead of harnessing sport as a positive force for good in the lives of millions of young people, the Government offer the economics of the marketplace and all the evils of boredom and frustration which affect our society so disastrously. On the "Today" programme only yesterday morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), contemptuously derided local government for spending money on leisure and sport.

The appearance of a succession of Cabinet Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, at all the great sporting occasions from cup finals to test matches is all very well, but when we consider their record in providing sport for the people, it rings hollow.

We must start to change all that. As the Labour party charter says, we shall stop sports fields and sports halls being sold off and end the nonsense of privatisation. We shall encourage local authorities to appoint development officers and create development strategies for sport. We shall insist that every child has the right to learn to swim while in primary school and the right to proper facilities in school for all sport, including team sports.

We shall insist that every sports club providing a service for the community shall be entitled to mandatory relief on sports facilities, as has long been advocated by the Central Council for Physical Recreation.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

On the subject of mandatory rate relief, the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Government have offered local authorities the option of 100 per cent. rate relief, of which 75 per cent. would be funded by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us with confidence that all Labour councils will follow the policy that he has outlined and opt for 100 per cent. rate relief. If not, perhaps he can tell us why not.

Mr. Howell

If any Labour council does not follow the advice in our policy I shall be surprised and I shall be pleased to learn about it from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carlisle

My local council, which, regrettably, is now Labour-controlled, has not followed the policy so far. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with it.

Mr. Howell

I shall, but I suspect that that council is following the example of its predecessor—the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I hope that that will soon be put right.

Local government facilities for sport and recreation are not only the main provider of sport for millions of citizens, but a major social service. In inner-city communities, with their varied ethnic make-up, sport is often a positive force for good. Everywhere sport, music, recreation, theatre and the other arts help to raise the spirits of our people, yet they are shamefully treated by the Government.

Local authorities own 1,700 major sports facilisties—indoor sports halls, playing fields, water parks and swimming baths. Between 1985 and 1990 the Government have cut the money for running them by 25 per cent. That is the Government's positive contribution to the growth of vandalism and hooliganism. The capital programme is just as bleak. Four years ago local authorities were planning to spend an extra £600 million on badly needed facilities. The Sports Council says that that has now been cut to about £260 million. That is our future going for a burton.

Desperately needed maintenance work is being neglected. It is estimated that during the next 10 years we shall need to spend £1.152 million on maintenance of facilities built in the past 20 years. With present policies, there is no hope of achieving anything like that. There will be more neglect and more facilities will be closed.

No doubt the Minister will say, as the amendment does, that the Government have assisted sport through the creation of the new Foundation of Sport and the Arts. We all know that that was the result of a deal between the pools companies and the Treasury, with the Minister for Sport in absentia. We must welcome any new money for sport, including the £40 million for sport which will come from that source, but there are many worries about the operation. First, there is the question of motive. We all know that the true motivation behind the foundation was not to provide money for sport and the arts but to ditch the possibility of a national lottery, which would have provided much more money.

As our charter says, the next Labour Government will initiate an immediate review of betting and sponsorship to ensure that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, more of the money earned from sport should be ploughed back into sport.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)

The mention of the leader of the Labour party reminds me of the celebrated story about the preparation of a recent Labour party political broadcast. I believe that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was acting as an umpire in a tennis match, but no one could find any tennis facilities in Lambeth, try as they might, so the broadcast had to be made in Tory-controlled Wandsworth. Does the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) hope that areas such as Lambeth will join in the development of sport in that way?

Mr. Howell

If that is the intellectual level on which the debate is to proceed, heaven help us all. Clearly, my right hon. Friend's party political broadcasts are so scintillating that they captivate even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).

I should like to correct a report that appeared in The Sporting Life that our review will lead to an immediate reduction in VAT on racehorses. That is not so. Our position on the subject is the same as that of the Government. We believe in harmonisation of VAT, and the present wide variety of rates of tax on racehorses throughout Europe is neither acceptable nor lawful. We remain critical of the Government for not having been more effective in bringing about such harmonisation.

Our review will certainly include the proposal for a national lottery. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made clear, in 1992, the British people are likely to have complete access to European lotteries. It will be nonsensical if our people can buy tickets to build and support sports ventures in other European countries but cannot do so to provide for sport and the arts in the United Kingdom. I must declare a personal interest in this matter, as I am a director—unpaid, I hasten to add—of the National Lottery Promotion Company. What I can say for my party is that, if we endorse a national lottery—[HON. MEMBERS: "You'll be paid."] I doubt it. We shall seek to safeguard the jobs of people employed in the pools industry in areas of high employment, although we do not accept that a national lottery will have a substantial effect on pools betting. That is not the European experience. Our proposal has the full support of the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the British Olympic Association and most of British sport.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

That does not necessarily make it right. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the estimate that about 6,000 people are currently employed in pools work in areas of high unemployment and that one estimate suggests that only 180 people would be employed in a national lottery? That might have an adverse effect in areas of high unemployment—let alone the regressive nature of the taxation that a national lottery implies.

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know that, half way through the proceedings, before the pools industry consulted Treasury Ministers, I was negotiating—on behalf of the National Lottery Promotion Company—with the industry on the premise that, to protect those jobs, it should run the lottery on our behalf. The pools industry rejected that proposal and went behind our backs. As I have said, however, European experience does not support the bogeyman theory that a national lottery would have a devastating effect on the pools. I certainly do not believe that it would and, in any case. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants a built-in monopoly for any one form of providing money for sport, especially when the amount of money that could be available for sport and the arts is as considerable as I believe it to be.

Sir John Farr (Harborough)

The right hon. Gentleman is clearing up misapprehensions. On another important point, is it true that if, unfortunately, the Labour party forms a Government after the next election, all private company and commercial sponsorship of sport will be brought to an end?

Mr. Howell

Where on earth did the hon. Gentleman get that idea from? I spent two years as the chairman of the team that conducted a special study for the CCPR into sports sponsorship. I endorsed it fully and my party endorses it fully.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell

I am sorry, but I must get on.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

They think that you are still a Minister.

Mr. Howell

As someone said the other day, half the nation thinks that I am still the Minister and the other half thinks that I should be. [HON. MEMBERS: "What modesty!"] Modesty has always been my strong point.

There is also the extraordinary imposition of a levy of 0.2p per line, imposed without consultation on every pools sponsor in the country. That is taxation without representation if ever it existed. Now we learn officially that that cannot be regarded as a voluntary contribution. Customs and Excise has intervened and told the foundation that, unless its money is spent in accordance with the definition of athletic sports as laid down in section 121 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, all its income will be liable to betting tax. So much for the voluntary contribution—and what impertinence.

We have now entered the pantomime season; the foundation has been advised—and has ludicrously accepted the advice—that athletic sports do not include archery, sailing, shooting, gliding and all Olympic sports and, possibly, golf, which will soon become an Olympic sport. No wonder the British Olympic Association was furious: it is a gross absurdity.

I cannot understand the refusal of the foundation to offer a grant to the Whelmar Bowmer club, for example. I hope that I shall carry the whole House with me on this and that we shall send a message back through the Minister. That club is an archery club for blind wheelchair users and walking disabled men and women living on the Wirral. It needs equipment and storage, but the trustees of the foundation have turned it down because its application does not meet the criteria of allowing aid to athletic sports". That is disgraceful.

The trustees should show more backbone and interpret "athletics" by the use of common sense. If necessary, they should tell Customs and Excise to go to hell and so should the Minister, who knows all about the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is doing something about it.

I am not surprised the Mr. Edward Grayson, the distinguished barrister specialising in sporting law, has advised the Central Council for Physical Recreation that the definition as imposed is a complete nonsense and a serious misconception that should be put right. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter.

School sport is the foundation on which all British sport is built. It is also the means by which every youngster in the land is introduced to the joys and possibilities of sport. Its importance cannot be overstated. It has never been in greater disarray. The Government carry a heavy responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. To start with—

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green)

ILEA?

Mr. Howell

What about ILEA?

Mr. Hargreaves

The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember, that it was ILEA, then under Labour control, which first introduced into Government-funded schools the absurd and ludicrous principle that competitive sports were injuring the growth and development of young children.

Mr. Howell

I am aware of that widespread libel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Slander."] It was both libel and slander. I investigated the matter in great detail and found that there was no truth whatever in the allegation.

I lament one thing that was happening at the time and so should the Minister. A number of our physical education colleges and inspectors and other professionals were moving away from team sports to individual sports, as though the two were in competition with each other, which is certainly not the case. People who go in for team sports want to go out walking and sailing, and that was ILEA's view. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that matter right.

The first thing for which the Government are to blame is the total collapse of teacher morale. Ministers are constantly undermining the profession. Another blow was struck to the cause of voluntary sport in schools when teachers were told that they had to clock in and record 1,265 hours per year plus additional time for marking, making reports and preparation. That meant that they had no time left to supervise school sports. It seems to me that we should properly recognise the amount of time that the country needs teachers to spend organising school sports in the evenings and at weekends and compensate them properly for it. My hon. Friends and I wish to consult widely in the teaching profession on whether such compensation should be given or whether an allowance should be made against the 1,265 hours for teachers who turn out in the evenings and on Saturday mornings.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently recommended that teachers of sport be paid for extra-curricular activities and does he support that recommendation?

Mr. Howell

As I have said, we are sympathetic to that proposition and intend to consult widely on it. I am certainly aware of the report. Unlike the Government, we do not impose our views on teacher unions. There is every good reason to consult the teaching profession on whether its members would prefer to be paid for turning out on a Saturday morning or whether they should receive an allowance that they could set against their compulsory hours. Anybody with any responsibility would want to consult on those alternatives and I am in favour of doing just that.

I take this opportunity to compliment the Select Committee on its excellent report, which has something to say to the Government about sport in schools at every point of the compass.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I, too, serve on that Select Committee and was glad to hear what my colleague on it, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), has just said. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's attacks on the teaching profession during the past 12 years have been appalling and have so lowered teachers' morale that much of the work that they used to carry out voluntarily has now ceased for reasons that are not the fault of the teaching profession? Should not the Government be ashamed of themselves for what they have done to school sports by their constant attacks on the teachers who run those sports?

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend has emphatically stated my case. As president of West Midlands School Sports, I entirely endorse what he said. When I attend athletics championships, I often find that as many as 45 per cent. of the entrants do not turn up because they do not have a teacher to bring them. Such statistics only underline my hon. Friend's point.

We must reverse the trend. This matter will receive urgent consideration from the next Labour Government. We shall also afford a higher place in the machinery of the Sports Council and in grant aid for development work to the National Schools Sports Association.

Perhaps the area of most vital concern is the lack of physical education teachers. It is impossible to trace any in primary schools, which is where all school sports should start. The Department of Education and Science has closed several colleges of physical education and there are now only 13 to serve the needs of all educational establishments. The number of places in physical education colleges has been cut by 21 per cent., so that only 600 specialists qualify every year. Many of them never even reach the classroom or the sports field; they are snapped up by the private sector as soon as they leave college, because the private sector recognises a good thing when it sees it.

I am told that teacher training colleges are receiving a steady stream of frantic telephone calls from head teachers who are desperate for qualified PE teachers. The Department's statistics, which suggest that we have enough teachers, are therefore meaningless in practice. The Department also believes that fewer PE teachers are needed because there is less PE in the curriculum, especially for scholars in the top 14 to 16 age bracket. Thousands of primary school teachers, who already have to cope with seven national curriculum subjects—there will be three more next September—receive no help or in-service training for PE, sport and games. Money must be provided for that training. No one can be in any doubt that primary school teachers are the proper people to train primary school children.

Professor Margaret Talbot wrote to the Minister in April outlining her scheme for a new strategy for INSET training so that the traditional providers of PE teachers —the institutions, the PE advisers and the schools, working together with sport—can meet the needs of the hour. She received a dusty answer from the Minister, who told her: It is very unlikely that we would wish to introduce any new national arrangements which single out physical education for other foundation subjects". It is sad to reflect that physical education which, like religious education, was understood in Rab Butler's great Education Act 1944 to be an essential requirement for the education of the whole person—both physically and spiritually—no longer has a proper place in the curriculum. It has no champion these days when the Minister for Sport is located in the Department of Education and Science. We can only ask, "What is he doing there? What has he achieved?" We shall be glad to learn later if he has achieved anything.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to outline the current position of sport in schools and the availability of resources and qualified staff. However, we should also put on the record the fact that many schools, such as Hartcliffe secondary school in my constituency, rely on the voluntary contributions of dedicated teachers who work long hours outside their normal hours of work and in collaboration with sports clubs to provide very good coaching in a whole range of sports for pupils in their area, but who do not receive any support, backing or encouragement from the Government. Sport in that school, for example, is provided only because of the contribution of those teachers.

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend has stated what is, regrettably, a fact of life—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Well, she is right to do so. In fact, I heard only this week that if a PE teacher gives up his lunchtime to take sport and games in his school, he does not get a free lunch, but if he simply supervises the kids in the playground, he does. That is just one of the small anomalies to which I am happy to draw the House's attention tonight.

Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell

Although I have a lot to say, I shall accord precedence to Luton Town football club.

Mr. Evans

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he confirm that competition is discouraged in Labour-run authorities and that some Labour authorities even ban sports days?

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here when we kicked off this match because we have already dealt with that. I have already discounted such comments as totally untrue.

I turn now to the important subject of dual-use schools where we are facing another crisis. The policy in such schools is to provide extra funds from the local authorities in addition to money from the education budget so that we can provide first-class sports facilities in our schools and colleges for use by scholars in the daytime and by the whole community at all other times. I am proud of that policy because it was started when I was a Minister and has been continued by my Conservative successors.

However, although it has been an enormous success, it is now in grave danger. The Minister has told me personally that, because of the changes in the law brought about by his Government, it is no longer lawful for school governors to allow local authorities to manage dual-use sites, even if the local authority provides them. That dangerous nonsense must be rectified. No local authority in its right mind would provide money for building sports facilities to be used on a dual-use basis if those facilities could later be confiscated and taken from it. I am happy to assure the Minister that if he or one of his hon. Friends introduces a Bill to rectify this matter—I hope that this will happen—it will receive full co-operation and support from the Opposition.

We are concerned about the blatant robbery that is proposed by the governors of some opt-out schools, who seek to confiscate facilities that have been provided by the community and to acquire them as their own. I have in mind schools such as the Great Barr comprehensive in Birmingham where, when the opt-out ballot was taken, the governors did not say that, if they won the ballot, they would wish to take over the £1 million sports hall that had been provided and managed by the local authority together with a large part of the playing fields, which had been provided and managed by the local authority since 1936. But that is exactly what the governors have done. Their silence during the ballot was a deception and their actions now are reprehensible. Ministers must deal with that situation without delay. If they do not, they will kill off dual-use schemes, which is what we warned would happen when this matter was last before the House.

At Great Barr, it is a special disgrace that the governors' first victims have been Greenholme primary school next door, which has lost 50 per cent. of its use of those facilities since the opt-out, and Brooklyn technical college across the road, which has been completely frozen out and now has no access to the sports hall or playing fields. Such governors should not be in public office. They should be removed from it or, if necessary, driven out.

Mr. Rooker

As this is probably the last time that my right hon. Friend will speak in the House on sport, I think that the House owes him a vote of thanks for the way in which he has discussed the issue of sport over the years.

The school that my right hon. Friend mentioned is in my constituency. Not only did I open its sports hall, but I was a pupil there in the 1950s. The playing fields have never been known as school playing fields. They have always been considered as a local recreation ground and they have always been accessible to the public. Although the hall is within the curtilage of the school, it was deliberately built on the boundary of the recreation ground so that it could replace the burnt-out huts, which were damaged through vandalism. That hall was partly funded by the insurance money for the damage.

The hall was never built for the exclusive use of the school. We are talking not about a wooden shack, but about a sports hall worth £1 million. Obviously the hall and the acres of land attached to it can be used exclusively by the school during school hours. However, for the governors to decide to take over those facilities in the evenings and on Saturdays and Sundays is nothing more than legalised theft. My right hon. Friend will be aware that that decision is totally opposed by the Tory councillors on Birmingham leisure services committee. The only people who support the decision are those Tory councillors who are governors of the school—they happen to be in the majority. Before the Minister makes a decision on the case, he should talk to the Tory, Liberal and Labour councillors of Birmingham, none of whom is in favour of the legalised theft that has taken place.

Mr. Howell

That was a splendid, pertinent intervention. Conservative Members may have considered that it was too long, but I am sure that they would all agree that it is a serious issue. I am sure that the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will support their colleagues on the city council.

The Minister should be aware that there is unanimity in Birmingham that it would be wrong for the school, or the assets board, to take over the facilities. I hope that the Minister will intervene, if necessary, to stop such action.

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State may be asked to consider this matter in due course. Therefore, I cannot be drawn, and nor can he, on the results of that consideration.

Mr. Howell

This is one of those times when I applaud the silence and discretion of the Minister. I hope that it means that the Minister will give deep consideration to the consideration. If a Bill such as that wanted by the Minister and me is introduced on dual use, I shall seek to raise this matter.

Today's debate must recognise the importance to society of voluntary sports clubs. Those organisations keep sport going, week in, week out, year after year. However, all over the country playing fields are being sold off and lost to the community, much of that at the behest of the Government. The Government are selling our heritage and betraying our future. The National Playing Fields Association estimates that 800 sites are under threat—equivalent to 10,000 acres of playing space.

The first thing that the Government should do, as we would, is to withdraw the infamous circular 909, which advises local authorities to sell off playing-field space. Croydon council is a particularly bad vandal. It has already disposed of a large playing-field area at Spring Park school, Shirley, and it has another five school fields in its sight. At this rate Croydon will own nothing but concrete.

As we state in our charter, we shall charge the regional sports councils with new responsibilities to resist such a loss of facilities in the planning process and on appeal. Labour Ministers can be expected to give firm guidance on the need to retain essential playing fields for the community.

I am pleased that in the recent planning guidance the Government have suggested to local government that they are not bound to sell recreational land at its full market value, but that they can let it to sports bodies, provided that they can maintain its use for sporting purposes. That is a useful step in the right direction, but it does not meet the understandable desire of many local authorities to get the best price they can for that land because of their critical financial state. We need much more action if we are to preserve playing-field space.

We also believe that the contribution that all voluntary sports clubs make to the community should be recognised by a requirement to grant them a mandatory rate relief of at least 50 per cent. We must face the fact that many of those clubs are being seriously handicapped in different ways, for example, by the imposition of the uniform business rate. That is soul-destroying for many sports clubs.

Another example of pure vandalism by local authorities has just occurred in the Minister's backyard—he knows all about it. The Leyland DAF sports centre is a magnificent facility—

Mr. Atkins

That has nothing to do with education.

Mr. Howell

I never said that it had. I am talking about all voluntary sports clubs.

That magnificent facility provides for football, cricket, tennis, bowls and much more. The Minister has called it a jewel and he said that he would fight for it to the death. But what has happened? The Tory council met behind closed doors, excluding the press and the public, and granted planning permission for development. So much for the citizens charter. No doubt the Minister will tell us how he intends to safeguard that jewel in his crown.

Other statutory bodies are behaving like tin-pot dictators. The Forestry Commission is now charging schools that take their children to Cannock Chase for educational work about the countryside. That is extraordinary. Plas-y-Brenin national sports centre is now so market oriented that, although it was inherited from the CCPR for the use of all outdoor sports participants, it is now charging the hotel price of £50 a night. The British Canoe Union, the British Mountaineering Council and the British Orienteering Federation—the very people for whom Plas-y-Brenin was provided—have all pulled out or will do so soon. That is another disaster brought about by compulsory competitive tendering.

Water authorities everywhere are going bananas. The Water Act 1989 required water authorities to safeguard the best interests of recreation. It said that they should take great care to ensure that existing arrangements, so important to many local communities, were not disturbed. Those important principles are now, I regret to say, being sacrificed everywhere for the highest price. Thames Water has just told Molesey boat club in Surrey that it makes no discrimination between classes of customers", and there are no reduced charges for voluntary organisations. That is a denial of the principle of rating relief for sport which attracted universal accord in the House. The Government should intervene.

We are all pleased that our football grounds are becoming much safer. We can welcome the fact that arrests are down by 31 per cent. Much of the credit must go to the Football Trust for providing video equipment that identifies offenders so efficiently and to the police who have used that new technology so skilfully. However, there is much concern about policing costs—£8 million last year. We must encourage clubs to train their own stewards and we should ask the police to reduce their demands for large numbers of officers when it is not necessary.

Another matter about which I feel strongly is the practice of some police forces to impose unreasonable demands on football clubs. They insist on the days of the week when football can take place and impose inconsiderate kick-off times. That is not the business of the police. Football is a lawful occasion. It should be treated as such and provided with the same consideration as any other sport or entertainment.

It is also necessary to express some concern about the development of the Football Association's blueprint for football. I agree with the Sports Council that it is a matter for concern that so many organisations which have a legitimate interest in the development of football were not consulted about it. Those include the Sports Council, the paying public in the shape of supporters' associations and the work force, the Football Association, the managers and the secretaries. It is good for the Football Association to think of planning for the future, but good government involves consultation and taking account of the rights of all interested parties.

Mr. Rathbone

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on second request. He has not mentioned drugs in sport and it looks as though he is not about to do so. I hope that there is cross-party support for the Government's position in support of the Council of Europe's convention on doping in sport. It is important to sportsmen and to the youngsters who admire them.

Mr. Howell

Absolutely.

Another commitment which Labour makes in its charter for sport is on the importance of international sport, especially great sports festivals such as the Olympic games, Commonwealth games, European games and world championships. The Government pay lip service to their importance, but provide no practical help. In contrast, the last Labour Government made available substantial financial aid for the football world cup in 1966 and the Edinburgh Commonwealth games in 1970. The next time round, Edinburgh did not receive a penny piece towards its 1986 Commonwealth games. Nor did Sheffield for the world student games that were staged earlier this year.

Mr. Atkins

That is not true.

Mr. Howell

In that case, will the Minister explain what happened?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman must know that money was made available to the world student games through the Sports Council, which is a Government fund.

Mr. Howell

Yes, but we cannot maintain those great festivals with the small amount of money made available to the Sports Council for everyone. I do not regard that as the special Government funding for which the Sheffield student games and the Commonwealth games called.

May I add a word of congratulation on the outstanding success with which Sheffield staged those games, despite the fact that its ratepayers were deserted by the Government. It was the same story with the Olympic bids of Birmingham and Manchester and the first-class hosting of the International Olympic Committee conference in Birmingham this year. The Sports Council helped in all those events so far as resources allowed. However, such major international events will never take place in this country unless international sport is taken seriously and there is major Government involvement in them. The Manchester bid must involve a capital expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds—I am told £800 million or £900 million. Manchester is rate capped, so it is difficult to see how it can provide substantial funds from its own resources. As we know, the private sector is experiencing great difficulties, so it would be equally unlikely that it could finance such a vast investment at present. The same story will be repeated on the revenue consequences of providing 20 Olympic facilities if Manchester wins the bid, as we all hope.

The Government must be involved if this country is to be taken seriously. The Labour party is committed to doing so, as the Government should be if they are properly to aid Manchester's cause. The British sporting public deserves the best of world sport. We back the Football Association bid to stage the European championships and hope that they will lead to future world championships.

We want the best for the United Kingdom, both in international sport and for the enjoyment of youngsters who are being denied it at present. The motion and Labour's charter for sport set out that essential strategy, which is necessary to bring those wishes about. I commend them to the House.

8.5 pm

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: `welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to sport in the United Kingdom in the provision of grant to the Sports Council for 1992–93 of £48.8 million, which has been increased in line with forecast inflation next year, complemented by new funds of the order of £40 million this year from the Sports and Arts Foundation and the £20 million per annum additional money from the Football Trust, and a further £0.7 million for the Champion Coaching Scheme; recognises the important decision to make physical education a mandatory subject in the National Curriculum from the start of the next academic year and the lead given by Her Majesty's Government in international matters such as drug abuse and the participation of South Africa in international sport; and further believes that Her Majesty's Government has demonstrated its high priorities in the sporting field as opposed to the out-dated, uncosted, bureaucratic, interfering and irrelevant policies of Her Majesty's Opposition and its allies.'. Let me get one thing straight from the beginning. Despite the whingeing generalities which we have heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the provision and achievement of sport in this country illustrates a success story. A specific example is the fact that this morning I have been in Harrogate on the last day of the RAC Lombard rally, which is the largest spectator event in the United Kingdom and one of the largest in Europe. There were about 250,000 spectators on the first day alone, and more than a million in the course of the five days. The rally will raise substantial sums of money—many millions of pounds—for this country. It is a typical example of the many success stories.

Mr. Roger King

Is my hon. Friend aware that the RAC rally came through Sutton park in Birmingham on the first day and was watched by tens of thousands of local people who thoroughly enjoyed the event and identified closely with the cars? Will he extend his congratulations to the tenth competitor to arrive home—the first British driver —Louise Aitken Walker and her co-driver, which proves that lady drivers in the United Kingdom are tops?

Mr. Atkins

My hon. Friend has as much knowledge of such matters as anyone. He makes his point well and I am delighted to associate myself with his congratulations.

As demonstrated by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and many others of my right hon. Friends, as well as by my move to the Department of Education and Science, sport is a high priority for the Government. First, it enhances the health of the young and old. Secondly, it gives a sense of achievement on personal, regional, national and international bases. It also provides great relaxation and recreation.

Sport needs money. It requires action to be taken in education and the structure to be examined. Above all, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath concluded in his lengthy speech, it needs action on the international front.

I shall shorten my remarks to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak because much time has been taken up. I shall deal with the points in the order in which they were raised by the right hon. Member for Small Heath. First, he raised the question of money. Direct central Government finance for sport is channelled through the sports councils. I am responsible for the Sports Council for Great Britain which, through grant aid, assists in the provision of sports facilities at local, regional and national levels.

To enable the Sports Council for Great Britain to carry out its important tasks, its grant in aid has been increased in real terms by just less than 30 per cent. when 1979–80 is compared with the grant recently announced for 1992–93 of some £48.8 million. Contrary to recent press reports, the latest grant has increased in line with forecast inflation and will enable the Sports Council to maintain its existing programmes. Funding for the three other sports councils has increased in real terms between 1979–80 and 1991–92 by 25 per cent.

I cannot mention funds without talking about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Opposition Members mock that foundation but it provides a substantial new tranche of money for sport that was not previously available.

Mr. Denis Howell

Before the Minister discusses the foundation, will he confide to the House why the grant aid increase for sport differed so dramatically from the grant aid increase for the arts?

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Minister for the Arts if he wants to know why the arts provision has been increased. The sports increase was in line with inflation and we have provided other funds which I am discussing now. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he wants more money for sport or he does not. In addition to the year-on-year increase to the Sports Council, we are providing a further £40 million or thereabouts to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to that?

Mr. Howell

No, but I am well aware that when the scheme was announced the Minister said that it would be funded with new money and should not be regarded as coming within the Sports Council's estimate. The Minister has departed from that and is now telling us that he is no good at fighting the battle for sport with the Treasury and that his colleague, the Minister for the Arts, is about 10 times more successful.

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong; he ignores the money that has been made available. Additional funds well in excess of inflation have been provided for grants to the Sports Council. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He made a lengthy speech complaining about the size of funds available for sport. I am now telling him that we provide a jolly sight more money than the Labour Government did when he was a Minister, and he should recognise that.

New funds of £40 million have been provided for sport in addition to that already available. As my hon. Friends know full well, a number of grant aids have already been made from the Sports and Arts Foundation. There are small ones such as the Corah bowling club in Leicester and the Ideas factory in Stockport and, at national level, the Sports Aid Foundation and the National Coaching Foundation, which have received substantial amounts of money. In addition, a grant is being made available to help prepare our athletes for the Olympics in Barcelona.

I was also able to find £700,000 at the start of this year, through the Sports Council, to give to the National Coaching Foundation to set up the champion coaching scheme. Since I last mentioned that scheme in our debate on sport and recreation in May, it has gone from strength to strength. It has proved so attractive that more than 6,000 children now participate in it in 24 regions in England in 11 different sports. That was originally a pilot scheme, when we expected that about 3,600 children would participate, but the demand for it has been so strong that that number has already risen to 6,000.

The reports that I am receiving, not only through my visits to a number of such schemes, but from the director-general of the National Coaching Foundation and others involved at local and regional level, are that the project is going wonderfully well, and they hope that it will be expanded. I have hopes for that in future years. I am most impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of the youngsters, coaches and, above all, the parents who have become involved in activities such as transporting the children.

In addition to that £700,000 I was able to find a further £300,000 as a direct result of my move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science—which makes a total of £1 million —[Laughter.] Opposition Members may scoff but those who received the £300,000—people with disabilities—were delighted that we had been able to find that extra money. It demonstrated that the Government believe that integration of disabled sport into able-bodied sport is important, even if Opposition Members do not.

There has been some good news in relation to sports sponsorship. The Government have been keen to encourage partnership with the private sector in sports sponsorship. Sport in the United Kingdom is benefiting from more than £200 million a year of funding from its sponsors. Despite rumours to the contrary from Opposition Members, the figures that I have seen for the first half of this year are extremely encouraging and show more than 450 new and extended sponsorships and a net gain of £11 million. That flies in the face of the doom and gloom that we hear from the Opposition.

I am anxious for more sponsorship of sports events at grass roots, to encourage greater participation by the community in taking full advantage of the opportunities. The Institute of Sports Sponsorship recently made proposals to me for a new sponsorship incentive scheme similar to that run so successfully for the arts, but targeted at the grass roots level. I am giving those proposals extremely serious consideration.

Mr. John Carlisle

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no objection to sports sponsorship by tobacco companies, and are expressing concern at the new European Community directive that tries to ban tobacco advertising in sports grounds? Will he explain where the Government stand on that issue?

Mr. Atkins

My hon. Friend has raised an issue dealt with in my very next line—tobacco sponsorship. The Government attach importance to the need for people to be aware of the risk of smoking. However, they also believe that sport should be able to benefit from legitimate tobacco sponsorship, provided that it is subject to proper control.

The latest figures show that £7.2 million was made available to sport through sponsorship by the tobacco industry. The sponsorship covered major national events in a wide variety of sports including cricket, rugby league, motor racing, horse racing, golf and darts. We believe that the current voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry provides proper control.

I do not take too kindly to the Commission suggesting in a directive that there should be a ban on tobacco sponsorship when it spends about four times the amount of money on subsidies to Greek tobacco owners to produce more tobacco. The Commission should examine its own house before it starts telling us what to do. There is a possibility that if tobacco sponsorship were forbidden, alcohol sponsorship might take its place. It provides substantial sponsorship of about £30 million.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok)

Tobacco kills—so does alcohol.

Mr. Atkins

Of course it kills. But I have enough respect for the British public to believe that they can make up their own minds about which events they want to see. All the evidence suggests that in ever larger numbers the British public are prepared to watch events sponsored by the tobacco industry. It seems that they feel as strongly about the issue as anyone else. No one is arguing about health, but we are talking about the freedom of legitimate companies and governing bodies to sell sponsorship properly. Therefore, my direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is that I shall continue to resist the directive, as will the Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

I appreciate the Minister's point about sports income from such advertising, but are there any figures on the cost to the national health service of chest illnesses arising from smoking? That figure must he far in excess of the income received from tobacco advertising.

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not get drawn into the issue of what the Exchequer raises in tobacco tax or what the health costs are, because I genuinely do not know. My responsibility is for the sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry, which involves a substantial amount of money—about £7.2 million. If other sponsorship were available, that might make a difference, but it is not. Therefore, the substantial loss to sport were tobacco sponsorship to be removed would be detrimental to the future of major national events. I prefer to leave it to the British public to decide what they want to do.

Important improvements to safety and comfort at football grounds have been made. In particular, all-seat accommodation, has been achieved by the additional £20 million a year released to the Football Trust following the reduction of 2.5 per cent. in pool betting duty in last year's Budget. The Government have provided £100 million over five years, initially by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister. Those higher standards of provision should assist in the continuing improvement in spectator behaviour that enabled our clubs to return to European competitions so successfully last season.

I have also supported any moves to bring together the Football Association, the Football League, the Professional Footballers Association and, where appropriate, the supporters, so that an agreed agenda for the development of the game can be established. From what the right hon. Member for Small Heath said, I suspect that there is not much disagreement between us on that. We all recognise that there is a need for football to move forward and to consider its future structure. That requires the necessary leadership to seize the opportunities for the benefit of the game as a whole.

I have also consistently emphasised how important it is for football clubs to enter into partnership with local authorities, the private sector, other sports organisations and possibly local employers, and to devise some imaginative schemes for football grounds. I should like more thought to be given to exploring the full sports and leisure potential of the new and refurbished football stadia of the future. It is essential to get away from the notion that football grounds are used solely for football once or twice a week.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as I had to leave to take a phone call when he was speaking earlier.

As regards multipurpose stadia, if the Scottish Football Association—which is considering various options including the renovation of Hampden park—concluded that it wished to support a private sector-led, multipurpose national sports and football stadium, perhaps led by major private companies, would the Government view that sympathetically? Would they give the association initial support? I do not ask the Minister to give a figure, but would the Government make some capital input to what would be a much-used, new national stadium that would be economically self-sufficient thereafter?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting question. As a Scot, he will appreciate that I would have to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport in Scotland because his version of a national stadium for Scotland would not be for me to consider initially. That Minister cannot be here for the whole of the debate, but I am sure that he will read the report of the debate and may wish to talk to the hon. Gentleman. As I say, it is not directly an issue for the English Minister for Sport and I prefer not to be drawn on the matter.

The sheer scale of local authority provision for sport and active recreation over the past 10 years is sometimes overlooked by Opposition Members. Local authorities are required to supply revenue and capital expenditure returns to the Department of the Environment each year. Defining sport and active recreation as closely as we can from returns, gross expenditure in England and Wales rose from some £333 million in 1979–80 to some £1.028 billion in 1989–90, the year for which we have the most recent data. That represents an increase in real terms of more than 50 per cent. over the 10-year period.

Gross capital outturn expenditure by local authorities on sport and active recreation in England increased from £184 million in 1987–88 to £335 million in 1989–90, an increase in real terms of nearly 70 per cent.

As a result of these real increases in both revenue and capital expenditure by local authorities, with assistance from the Sports Council, we have seen a significant growth in the number and range of local sport and active recreation facilities provided. According to Sports Council figures, the number of sports halls and leisure centres in England has increased from under 800 in 1981 to about 1,500 by the end of last year. In 1990–91, 53 sports halls were completed and a further 45 were under construction.

Contrary to the impression which Opposition Members and especially the right hon. Member for Small Heath would like to give, there has not been a decline in the number of public swimming pools. The number of conventional swimming pools in England increased to approximately 1,140 by the end of 1990–91 and, in addition, there were about 150 leisure pools. That compares with 1,000 swimming pools in the early 1980s. There were also 272 artificial turf pitches in England by the end of 1990–91, of which 55 were completed and a further 18 were under construction. Those figures are equally impressive.

Furthermore, this activity by local authorities and the Sports Council contributed to the large increase in participation levels during the 1980s. Between 1977 and 1987—the period for which we have most comprehensive statistics—the percentage of the adult population regularly taking part in sport and physical exercise rose from 45.3 per cent. to 56.6 per cent.

The right hon. Member for Small Heath spoke about the planning policy guidance note. I am delighted with the reception that it has received since I investigated it when I was in the Department of the Environment wearing my other hat as Minister responsible for planning. Obviously, I have watched its progress since I transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science. It has been well received by all those involved in sports provision as giving an essential framework for the planning of sports provision. It provides constructive advice on planning sport and recreation development in a wide range of areas, and advice on how to handle some of the more difficult planning issues that can arise in particular sports.

The guidance note also makes clear that local authorities should ensure that the existing stock of playing fields and open space available for sport and recreation is not depleted without taking into account the long-term needs of the community for recreation or amenity open space. It makes quite clear to local authorities that playing fields should normally be protected, and that local plans should include a statement of the extent of the community's requirements for sports pitches and policies on the protection of playing fields. They should also take account of the register of recreational land that is being prepared by the Sports Council as a result of the £500,000 that I made available at the beginning of the year.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

Playing fields that are available to the public either through a local authority or under the terms of a trust should surely be available to local schools to use for proper recreational purposes. The Minister knows that adjacent to the city technology college in my constituency there is a large playing field owned by the Hustler trust which is administered by the Labour controlled Cleveland county council. Since the city technology college was established, the use of that field, which was previously available to the school, has been denied. Is not that a fine example of how Labour's fine words in the motion are belied by its actions on the ground?

Mr. Atkins

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. It reminds me of an incident in Cleveland concerning a boy who was fortunate enough to be able to play football for Middlesbrough Town. He played until he was unfortunate enough, in the context of a Labour controlled council, to gain a place at Cleveland CTC. As a result he was prevented from playing the game that he loved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and my late hon. Friend Richard Holt made it quite clear that they would continue to be associated with our campaign against that vindictive decision for as long as was needed. I am glad to be able to confirm that at long last Cleveland school sport council has decided to allow Cleveland CTC to take part in school events, thereby allowing my hon. Friend's young constituent to participate. That has happened thanks to my hon. Friend and the late Richard Holt. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his achievement.

Mr. Devlin

I apologise for again interrupting my hon. Friend during his speech. Although we are pleased that Macmillan college is now allowed to play against other schools, a rearguard action is being fought by a small group of teachers in the county who say that they will not administer games between the CTC and other schools. That is totally disgraceful, given that the majority of those who took part in the meeting of the school sport council decided not to allow this ridiculous and vindictive ban to continue.

Mr. Atkins

That is an action by the party which is supposed to be greatly in favour of sport. It makes one wonder.

Mr. Denis Howell

I share the concern. The Minister made it clear that the reversal was decided by Cleveland school sport council and not the local authority. As he has said, it was not the responsibility of the local authority but that of the local sports council.

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that local sports council is funded by Cleveland council.

Mr. Howell

rose—

Mr. Atkins

I should like to get on with my speech. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for an hour.

Mr. Denis Howell

The Minister should withdraw that. Is he saying that every time a local authority or the Government fund a voluntary body they are responsible for the policies of that body? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman cannot slip and slide away from the actions of his party in Cleveland. It made a vindictive decision to prevent a young boy from playing football. As a result of the pressure exerted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and the late Richard Holt, that decision has been reversed. That is why the Opposition are shouting. They know that they got it wrong and that at long last my hon. Friend has put matters right.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins

I should prefer the hon. Gentleman to allow me to make progress. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Canavan

Will the Minister take this opportunity to be even-handed by condemning private fee-paying schools that ban football?

Mr. Atkins

I am not aware of any private fee-paying schools that ban football.

Mr. Canavan

Association football.

Mr. Atkins

We are being drawn down a cul-de-sac. If the hon. Gentleman has a case that he would like to raise with the Minister who has responsibility for sport in Scotland, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be delighted to receive it.

I shall now deal with sport for young people as it relates to our education service. Crucial to encouraging greater participation in sport and the increased use of sports facilities is the attitude of young people to sport. That is why introducing school children to the practice of sport and physical recreation is one of the Government's key priorities. Teachers clearly have an essential role, which the Government fully recognise, both in developing sporting skills within physical education as part of the curriculum and in providing a range of extra-curricular sporting opportunities.

The importance of PE in schools is reflected in the important decision taken by the Government to include for the first time as a foundation subject physical education for all pupils from age five up to 16 in maintained schools in England and Wales. The Labour party was not prepared to do that when it was in office. That is another key mandatory requirement which was part of the physical education working party's recommendations and one that we were delighted to agree with.

The working group's final report was published in the summer along with the proposals for physical education in the national curriculum by the Secretaries of State. I congratulate the working group, under the chairmanship of Ian Beer, a former headmaster of Harrow school. All the members of the working group contributed greatly to a cogent and well-argued report, and one that we largely accepted. Most of all, it said that competitive games were an essential part of a programme of physical education. I, and I am sure all my hon. Friends, heartily endorse that view. Given my love of cricket and rugby union, I doubt that anyone would be surprised by that.

I am concerned, as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Small Heath and others are, about the problem of the scheduling of organised team games within the curriculum. This problem is made all the more difficult at the end of a summer term, which seems to be getting earlier and earlier, when exams impede the adequate provision of summer team games. I have drawn this problem to the attention of the independent School Examinations and Assessment Council and I hope that it will recognise that this is a concern of all hon. Members and react accordingly to it.

The working group stressed the importance of partnerships in sport and made some particularly helpful suggestions. In view of what the right hon. Member for Small Heath said earlier, I should record my appreciation of, and support for, physical education teachers, and their status. I understand the need for there to be more of them and for them to be better appreciated. I am keen that the head of PE in every school, whether male or female, should be part of the head teachers' management body and play an important role in the day-to-day running of physical education in schools. I am also pleased to add my support for, and gratitude to, the many part-time teachers or teachers who, in a part-time capacity, act after school in coaching youngsters at all levels. That is another success story that the Labour party is ignoring.

Consideration is being given to how best to ensure that teachers can be properly trained to teach all the core and foundation subjects in the national curriculum, including PE. Recruitment to teacher training has increased steadily and stands at the highest level in recent years. The Department's projections suggest a plentiful supply of PE teachers for secondary schools in the 1990s. Recruitment to secondary initial teacher training courses in 1991 was 1,130, exceeding the allocation of funded places of 750 by 50 per cent.

Another important aspect of the PE working group's report is school swimming. The PE working group's proposals envisage a requirement that all pupils be taught to swim by age 11 and the Government have accepted, in principle, this recommendation. We share the view of the physical education working group and of the "Swim for Life" campaign that swimming is a vital, life-saving skill. My Department is carrying out a survey to assess the feasibility and cost of the proposed requirement and to calculate when it should be introduced in schools. The survey will be completed by the end of this year and cover access to swimming pools, the average cost of building suitable primary school pools and the average cost of teaching a child a swim. The initial sample survey carried out by the PE working group showed that already 85 per cent. of the primary schools surveyed already provide swimming as part of their curriculum.

The House will be fully aware that one of the aspects of sport dear to my heart, and I suspect, given his former incarnation as a referee, to the heart of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, is fair play. I feel strongly as a parent that if youngsters lose the feeling of fairness and understanding of fair play at a young age, they are unlikely to regain it when they grow up. When I came to this job, I made it clear publicly that one of my aims was to do something about paying some attention to that.

I am delighted that, on the occasions when I have raised this matter, both in the House and around organisations the length and breadth of the country, it seems to have struck a chord with parents and governing bodies alike. I am delighted that the Sports Council has instituted its fair play award in conjunction with BBC Radio 5 and that the Central Council of Physical Recreation has introduced its Stanley Matthews award. A variety of other organisations and people, including his royal highness the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal, have associated themselves strongly with this aspect of sport. It is one that I know that every hon. Member feels as strongly about as I do.

My next subject is dual-use and encouraging the community use of sports facilities at schools. This is a long-standing objective of the Government and much has been achieved. Local management of schools gives greater discretion to school governing bodies to determine their priorities and every incentive to make optimal use of their sports facilities, including dual-use. To encourage this further, the Department has recently published its guidance booklet, "A Sporting Double: School and Community", which has been well received.

The right hon. Member for Small Heath referred to section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which we hope to be able to amend so that the problem of governors entering into joint management agreements can be addressed. I am grateful to him and to the Liberal Democrats spokesman for their offer to allow this to have all-party support when we can find a colleague to take the matter up and pursue it through the House.

Some mention has been made of the review that I inherited briefly when I moved to this job and to which I attach great importance. It examined a whole series of aspects of the Sports Council structure and related matters. I have not set a deadline on when this review will be published because I want above all to listen to what people say. As a result, I held a conference in April with a full range of organisations involved in encouraging sport for young people, and we listened to what they had to say. They included youth clubs, governing bodies and groups from education. It was extremely well received and they told me that they had never had this opportunity before. As a result of those discussions, we shall be taking action and reporting soon.

The concept of partnership, which was fundamental to all this, embraces the idea of young people, their parents, schools, communities and businesses working together. The focus of activity is young people. I have made it clear at international level what I have set out to do and the Government, through the Prime Minister, have done much the same. We have the great objective of trying to improve and build upon the Government's commitment to international support at a variety of levels. Here, I pick out particularly—I suspect that the House will agree with me —the subject of South Africa.

The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the amount of work that he has done in encouraging the involvement of South Africa in international sport. Particularly dear to my heart is the fact that cricket has led the way. I pay special tribute to Colin Cowdrey who, as chairman of the International Cricket Council, has done an enormous amount of work travelling the world trying to ensure that the changes in South Africa—albeit not as great as we would wish, but a step in the right direction—have allowed cricket and a variety of other sports to become active internationally again. How good it was the other day to see South Africa playing in India and I hope that this will go from strength to strength. We all welcome that and I hope that all sports in South Africa, as they merge and their organisations become one, will be able to play a greater part.

Another subject of great concern to us is doping and drugs—one of the main threats to international sport. The Government have been active in countering the threat through international action. They have played a leading role in the preparation and monitoring of the Council of Europe's anti-doping convention, which came into force in 1990. We have also signed a trilateral anti-doping agreement with the Governments of Australia and Canada.

Domestically, the Government have fought the doping threat through the creation of the Sports Council's independent drug testing regime in 1988 and through enhanced measures, announced earlier this year, to tackle the use of anabolic steroids, including the creation of a new criminal offence of providing steroids to a minor. The fact that only 45 illegal substances were detected out of nearly 4,000 tests conducted by the Sports Council in 1991 bears testament to the success of these policies.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves

My hon. Friend will know of my long-term interest in this subject. I urge him to use his influence and his new position within the Department of Education to extend education on the dangers of drugs in sport to young people as they first become involved in sport. Will he say something about that?

Mr. Atkins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that topic about which he feels strongly and which we can do more to encourage. The need to make youngsters appreciate early on the devastating effect of drugs is not confined to the world of sport alone but applies to a wide variety of other aspects of life. From that point of view, I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention.

I am conscious of the time. I have not yet spoken for as long as the right hon. Member for Small Heath. I have only a page and a half of my brief left, but he raised a number of topics and I have tried to answer them.

Sir John Farr

So far, my hon. Friend has not mentioned shooting, which is probably Britain's biggest participator sport with about 2.5 million active participants. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government fully support shooting in all its forms? In addition, he may care to comment on the Labour party's proposal to limit one legally held gun of any type to any one person.

Mr. Atkins

An hon. Friend once told me that there are only three sports, hunting, shooting and fishing; all the rest are merely active recreation. My hon. Friend is an expert in shooting and I defer to him. I enjoy a shoot and, judging by the majority of people who do the same, I am not alone. I should be interested to know what the Opposition think about the matter. They appear to be in favour of angling, but against shooting.

Mr. Denis Howell

indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that. We may hear more about that in due course.

The Manchester Olympic bid concerns a number of hon. Members, not least me as a north-west Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Manchester Olympic bid committee. They have already been to see the Prime Minister who has expressed keen interest and support and has asked them to consider a number of suggestions. They have gone away to do so and will in due course come back with some ideas which will be considered by the Government. Therefore, it is unfair for the right hon. Member for Small Heath to say that we are not supporting the Manchester bid. We have not yet made a decision. We are waiting for the Manchester Olympic bid committee to put a detailed case to us.

Mr. Denis Howell

indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are waiting for the committee to put a detailed case to us which we shall convey to the Prime Minister and then the matter will be considered. No decision in any way, shape or form has yet been made.

Mr. Howell

If that means that the Government might well give some substantial assistance to Manchester, I would welcome it. But the previous Prime Minister and, in the early days of his premiership, the present Prime Minister made it clear that they would support the Manchester bid only if it was a completely private sector bid. However, if the Government are now changing their stance on that, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome it.

Mr. Atkins

I am not making any change; I am merely saying that no decision have yet been made because we are awaiting the bid from Manchester.

I make no apologies for answering the right hon. Gentleman's points. After all, this is an Opposition day debate. The Opposition have raised the subject and I have tried to answer their points. Before I sit down I want to address myself briefly to the Opposition.

The Opposition have made great play of "Charter for Sport". The Liberals have not published any such document so we have no idea what their policy is on sport. However, no doubt we shall hear in due course. But the Labour's policy for sport is filled with contradiction. For example, when the right hon. Member for Small Heath announced "Charter for Sport" he said that he wanted, among other things, to rejuvenate and reorganise the Sports Council through much more ministerial involvement to offer the leadership so badly needed. But it says in "Charter for Sport" that the Labour party wants to avoid political bias. I should like to know how Ministers can be more involved in running sport without political bias.

Mr. David Evans

Has the Labour party costed its proposals in "Charter for Sport"?

Mr. Atkins

I was about to come to the costing of the Labour party's policy. We have heard much about international events hut we have not heard where the money for them will be found. We have heard about mandatory rate relief, for which money will have to be found. We have heard about payment for teachers after hours, for which money will have to be found. We have heard about tax exemptions and reviews, for which money will have to be found. I can do no more than quote the right hon. Member for Small Heath when he announced the charter. He said: A Labour Chancellor cannot provide us with the resources we want. I bet he cannot. Is this spending a high priority, an important priority or just a priority, or will it not happen at all? We need to know where that money is coming from.

If nothing else, the Labour party has been guilty of inaction. There was some criticism some time ago that I was not answering questions in the House as the Minister for Sport. I did a spot of research and discovered that of all the questions asked only 33 had come from the Opposition, less than 50 per cent., and none had come from the right hon. Member for Small Heath. The only debates on the subject have been initiated by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Perhaps he, rather than the right hon. Gentleman, should be on the Opposition Front Bench. There is a gentleman who knows a little bit about sport and is active in it. I should like to know who is speaking for the Opposition in that regard.

We heard earlier about the blind prejudice from Cleveland. But. above all, this document, which is outdated and irrelevant as the amendment says, is guilty of no more or less than plagiarism. It contains a number of ideas which it claims to be new. On page 9 it says: We will secure a prominent and appropriate place for sport and physical education within the school curriculum". I have just said that we have made physical education compulsory up to the age of 16.

On page 11 it says: Football spectators have suffered more than others. Urgent action is needed to improve the quality of our football grounds. That will cost £20 million a year for five years.

That is more plagiarism of our ideas. So it goes on. On page 14 it says: we will welcome the return of South Africa to international sport". The Government have done it already. We have taken the lead. Wherever one turns, whatever we do, it is the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, who have given sport a high priority. Opposition Members Make a great deal of noise, but when it comes down to it their ideas are out of date, irrelevant and uncosted. Everyone knows that they do not know what sport is all about.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. It will be evident to the House that there is only a little over an hour left. As many hon. Members wish to take part, I appeal for brief speeches.

8.47 pm

Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde)

I am grateful to be able to speak from any Bench in this debate. It is good that the Opposition have once more been able to bring the Minister kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has provided with his usual aplomb the reasons why most people regard him as the best Minister for Sport that Britain has ever produced. However, having paid him that compliment, I should say that he was a little over-generous in giving way to so many Conservative Members. He must know by now that most of their interventions are rather spurious.

This is the fourth time since last December that the Minister has had a chance to speak in a debate on sport, and each time it has been the Labour party which has brought him to the Dispatch Box. I am not telling the Minister anything that he does not already know, but he must be aware that the Labour party is the only party that gives him the opportunity to offer his responses, however inadequate, to the challenges facing sport throughout 1991, the year of sport.

I should have thought that the Minister might care to reflect on the failure of his team mates to offer him any similar chances to speak in the House. Recognising the number of people who want to speak in the debate, he might lean on the Government Whips to ensure that we have a full day's debate in Government time so that we can debate these issues fairly and squarely. Unfortunately, the Minister is not the only person who is unwilling to arrange that.

Astoundingly, it has been claimed in recent Tory party press releases, and by the Minister in a recent seminar at the Institute of Sports Sponsorship—and elsewhere—that Labour's interest in sport is new found. The Minister has said that Labour Members rarely raise the subject in Parliament. When I heard those claims, I thought that the Minister must be suffering from a memory lapse. I distinctly remember debating sport with him on a number of occasions, as do my hon. Friends. On 20 December last year, we debated the problems facing football; on 28 February, we debated sport in schools; on 23 May, we debated sport and recreation. All those debates were initiated by the Opposition.

Mr. Atkins

rose—

Mr. Pendry

I will not give way now. I will invite the Minister to intervene later, but I want to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity to speak.

I gave the Minister a gentle prod. Nearly three weeks ago, I wrote to remind him of the occasions on which we had been sparring partners, and pointed out that the Government had not initiated a single debate on sport since December 1990. I asked him to withdraw his comments. Amazingly, I have not received so much as an acknowledgment, let alone a retraction.

As the Minister knows, I am a forgiving man, and I am prepared to overlook his laxity. Would he like to intervene now, and tell us whether the Government have initiated a single debate on this subject during the Year of Sport?

Mr. Atkins

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I exempted him specifically; I said that he was the only Opposition Member who initiated debates and asked questions. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has not asked a single question, or initiated a single debate, until today.

Mr. Pendry

That is not true, and the Minister knows it. Moreover, he has carefully avoided my main charge —that the Government have no interest in sport and do not wish to debate it.

Given the Minister's current relations with the British sporting world, he needs all the favours that he can get. He must feel particularly uncomfortable in sporting circles nowadays—especially in the light of the Government's decision to cut the Sports Council's grant again, which they repeatedly deny having made: they do so again in the amendment to our motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, quoting the chairman of the Sports Council, rightly described that decision as a kick in the teeth.

Fifteen days ago, I called the Minister to account for that shameful act. I reminded him of the swingeing cuts —amounting, in real terms, to nearly £60 million—that the Government had made between 1986–87 and 1991–92 in funding to sport through grants to the sports councils and support for sport through the urban aid programme. Instead of coming clean, and honestly admitting to the House that the state of affairs was disgraceful, the Minister sought to hide the truth. He gave details of the funds that were going to British sport from sources that have precious little to do with the Government's spending.

The Minister told the House: the Government can lay claim to spending more money on sport than any party has done for many years. That is not true, and he knows it. He has a clear duty to halt the shabby deception of the House that has been perpetuated by the Government's amendment, and confirm that the Government have slashed funds for sport over the past five years.

The Minister, of course, has the reputation of being less than a financial wizard. Since April, he has wasted six months in trying to claim that the Sports and Arts Foundation would be given £75 million. Along with others, I have pointed out in three separate debates, and in letters, that his estimate was £15 million short. He was finally forced to admit his error in a written answer on 22 October. It is no use the Minister shaking his head, unless he did not write the answer himself. Tonight's amendment shows the same miscalculation.

When I challenged him 15 days ago, the Minister attempted to answer the worry expressed about the cuts by the chairman of the Sports Council: the increase in grant to the Sports Council is 4.4 per cent., which is more than the rate of inflation … I spoke to the chairman of the Sports Council this morning and pointed out that the increase in grant is in excess of inflation. Therefore, his comment was wrong."—[Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol 198, c. 886.] It is clear that the Minister has now been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that claim was inaccurate. According to the autumn statement, the increase in grant to the Sports Council in 1992 will fail to keep pace with inflation for that year; the chairman of the Sports Council was right. Even the Government's amendment has back-tracked on what the Minister previously said. A fortnight ago, he told the House that the grant would be in excess of inflation; the amendment says that it will be "in line" with inflation. The truth is that it will fail to match inflation.

The Minister must publicly apologise, both to the House and to the chairman of the Sports Council. My hon. Friends and I look forward to that—although we hope that he will not do it tonight, as that would take up still more of the House's time. It does him no good at all to waste everyone's time in covering up the Government's failings. He must use his energies more usefully by presenting a positive strategy for British sport.

As the Minister has said, there are promising signs in the sporting world, but that is no thanks to the Government. The newly established British Sports Forum at last unites the United Kingdom's major nongovernmental sports organisations in a single body, and I hope that the Minister's review, whenever it appears, will fully endorse that initiative.

At a recent conference of the General Association of International Sports Federations in Sydney, several members of the International Olympic Committee and other delegates were heard to praise Britain for its historical contribution to world sport, but added that they could not vote for a Manchester bid unless Britain's national sports bodies spoke with a united voice. The establishment of the British Sports Forum is excellent news, but it is vital that the Government play a central role in creating the right climate for it to operate effectively.

Some people involved in sport must now be choking on their description of the Minister's arrival at the Department of Education and Science—together with the transfer of the present Prime Minister from No. 11 Downing street to No. 10—as a dream ticket for sport. Some dream—it has turned into a nightmare for many people in the world of sport. We need only point to the Minister's abject failure to produce his review of Government sports policy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath pointed out in his comprehensive speech, the review has been in the offing for four years.

On 5 February, in a parliamentary written answer, the Minister told me that the review would be published in the summer. Both his inaccuracy in predicting matches and his statistical ineptitude have been clearly demonstrated tonight. We are nearing the end of the Year of Sport, and we are still none the wiser about the Government's proposals. That may not be strictly true; we have heard the next Government's proposals. They are contained in our charter for sport, which sets out a positive vision of what sport is, and what it can become, given the right backing from Government. A Labour Government will provide that backing.

Ours is an enabling ethos. The Minister resorted in desperation to well-worn scare stories about interfering Governments, as he has done before; but even he must know that our charter promises an environment that will enable sportsmen and women to find their own level. That is why we shall involve spectators and participants in the decision-making process. That is why we shall provide more physical education teachers and establish a comprehensive national system of sports development officers to help everyone, from children to grandparents, to gain the opportunity to enjoy sport and leisure for themselves.

We have given unequivocal backing to teaching children to swim by the age of 11. We are happy that the Minister went along with that tonight, but it has taken him a long time to reach that conclusion. We expect him not just to wait for the survey to be completed but to recognise that in some areas he can act now, without resource implications. I have asked him repeatedly to carry out a survey of the lack of provision. Eventually—many months later—he agreed to do so. We are grateful, but it was rather late.

The encouragement and the backing of sport are the watchwords of our charter. That is why it has been greeted so positively in sporting circles. The Minister will have seen the reaction of the sports world to our proposals. It has been enthusiastic and welcoming.

The reason for that universal welcome among sports experts is that they know that, when Labour says that it will revitalise British sport, it means what it says. Unlike the Government, we have a record and a pedigree to back up our words. It is small wonder that the Minister is unwilling to unveil his product. He must know that it represents not so much his opus magnum as his epitaph. We provided the Minister with a platform to dispute that tonight and to enlighten us, but he failed to take advantage of that opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath said with great clarity that, when we are returned to office, we shall be pioneering once more and give sport the lead that it so desperately needs.

Will the Minister match our commitment to introduce mandatory rating relief for all voluntary sports clubs? He has already said that he will not do so, which is disgraceful. It has already been introduced in Northern Ireland and has been very useful. Unfortunately, the Minister's praise for discretionary rate relief, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), suggests that he does not share our enthusiasm for mandatory rate relief. His view on that occasion was, in part, due to the results of a survey carried out by his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office.

I wonder whether they provided the Minister with only half the story, as happened in the case of their written answer to me on 5 November. On that occasion, they told me about the total number of sports clubs that received rate relief in 1991, but what they refused to tell me—despite an explicit request in my written question, although I have since discovered the answer as a result of pressing other Departments—is that the survey showed that 1,136 voluntary sports clubs applied for rate relief in 1991 under the present system but were turned down.

What does the Minister have to say to those 1,136 sports clubs that were denied those vital financial resources? Does he think that discretionary rate relief has worked well for them? Can he explain why those applications were turned down? Did his Department keep him in the dark?

I hope that the Minister will tell the House what he plans to do to back Britain's attempts to bring international sporting events to Britain. If the Government's treatment of the world student games is anything to go by, the answer is precious little. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can enlarge on that point.

A sports-loving Government would be a driving force for sport. They would not cower in the stands, refusing to participate. The Prime Minister gave a cricket bat to President Bush at Kennebunkport. To do that is one thing; to come up with the goods for sport in this country is quite another.

In reality, as the whole of the sports world knows, Tory Governments have always trailed badly behind Labour Governments when it comes to sport. As the record shows, despite the Minister's fantasy allegations, it has always been the Labour party that has led the sporting pack. In the 1960s, it was a Labour Government who created the Sports Council and gave Britain its first Minister for Sport. In the 1970s, it was a Labour Government who led the way for British sport in Europe and who negotiated and signed the European sport-for-all charter.

Within the world community, by signing the Gleneagles agreement, a Labour Government established the boycott of sporting links with South Africa, on account of apartheid. [Interruption.] I am not sure that we carry the entire House with us on that. All too often, the Government have ignored the Gleneagles agreement in all but the letter of the law.

Celebrations alone are not enough. We need to improve Britain's sporting profile overseas, or we shall not maximise our potential as a host to top-class world sporting events. One step that the Government must take immediately is to put together a high-profile sports aid programme for the black townships in South Africa and for the front-line states whose sport has suffered as a result of the lack of international competition. Other European countries are doing just that. We should do it, too.

Labour has given a pledge in its charter for sport to back the international efforts of our sports stars, many of whom are our finest ambassadors. We recognise the major international role that sport plays in Britain, or could play if it was given the right backing by the Government, and we will play our full part in supporting that role. We appreciate that, by being seen to give support, Britain will make a vital contribution to Europe and international sport, as well as helping to promote a high world profile for British sport. The United Kingdom's work in the Council of Europe's committee for the development of sport and the British Olympic Committee would benefit enormously.

This year, in the Year of Sport, the launch of the Labour party's charter has shown that once again it is the Labour party in the 1990s that has the ideas, commitment, and, above all, the political will to bring a better deal for sport and secure a brighter future. The millions of sportsmen and women who are crying out for Government support know that they will not have to wait much longer for the backing that they so urgently need. After the next election, a Labour Government will put them back in the driving seat.

9.5 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I do not intend to follow the tub-thumping oratory of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who sounded as if he was making a bid for the Opposition Front Bench. After the long-winded effort that we had to listen to earlier, I am surprised that he is not already there.

I do not need to tell the House that the Lake district is one of the favourite parts of the United Kingdom for sport and recreation. The House knows that thousands of people visit the Lake district every year to enjoy its marvellous scenery, and many come to enjoy sport and recreation on the lakes. They come to swim, fish and sail and for other forms of boating.

Hundreds of visitors and many local people enjoy the sport of power-boating, particularly on Lake Windermere. There are many facilities on that lake for the increasingly popular sport of water-skiing. To my knowledge, the Windermere Motor Boat Racing club has been in existence for more than 60 years, and there is a long history of world records being achieved on the lake.

For many years, there has been a growing need to apply proper controls to power-boating. We know that power boats can be dangerous, apart from the noise element which can be unattractive and intrusive. I remember moving amendments to the Countryside Bill in 1968, which eventually led to the registration of boats on Lake Windermere and some of the spead limits that now exist.

Windermere is the only lake in the Lake district on which power boats are allowed. In 1976, there was a public inquiry and power boats were banned from the three lakes of Ullswater, Coniston and Derwentwater, apart from rare exceptions. The inspector at that inquiry said that, in view of the recreation history of Windermere, it should be regarded as a place where fast power-boating and associated water-skiing should be allowed. That is what has happened.

However, power-boating as it exists on the lake is highly unsatisfactory, and there is an urgent need for new controls. Tragically, a child was killed only a few years ago. Stupid behaviour is too common, and it results in wholly unreasonable interference with other lake users. Proper standards of insurance and competence do not exist to the extent that they should, and the noise is occasionally far too intrusive. There is also a problem of people using power boats to water-ski early in the morning. That is wholly unreasonable.

About a year ago, the Lake District special planning board worked hard to find a way of amending the rules to restore a sensible approach to power boating on Lake Windermere. But earlier this year, it dropped a bombshell. Without warning, it decided to impose a 10 mph limit on the lake, which effectively killed all power-boating sport. Members and officials of the board did not conduct an inquiry to discover how many jobs, businesses and livelihoods around the lake depended on power boating. I do not know what the figure is, but it is clear that many jobs are affected. My principal concern about the effect of the speed limit is the loss of those jobs.

The Countryside Commission endorsed the board's surprise recommendation. I believe, however, that it is not too late to save many jobs and businesses by introducing sensible new rules to ensure that Lake Windermere is big enough to accommodate those who wish to enjoy it in their various ways. I am sure that, with good will, that can be done.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that a meeting was recently held of the major bodies that oppose the 10 mph ban. They included the Royal Yachting Association, the British Water Ski Association, the Sports Council, the Standing Conference for Northern Sport and Recreation and the British Marine Industries Federation. They agreed a package to put to the Lake District planning board as an alternative to the 10 mph limit. The proposals better to control activities on the lake are based on plans that officers of the planning board were working on until the surprising vote that imposed the 10 mph limit.

The proposals that have now been agreed by lake users develop the original proposals on which the board's officers were working. For instance, they would impose zoning on the lake to confine power boating to certain areas, and would introduce measures to control noise properly. They seek to control the time when power boats can be used. I recently heard that somebody was water ski-ing at 5 o'clock in the morning and disturbing people. That was wholly unreasonable, and the package of proposals would stop that. The purpose of the package is to eliminate the cowboy element who drive power boats on the lake, and who cause most of the trouble, and to give clubs more control over such sports.

The lake users' proposals contain a most important new suggestion for two substantial improved controls for the board that did not form part of the officers' original proposals. The first is that power boat drivers towing a water skier must hold the appropriate level of the Royal Yachting Association's national power boat certificate of competence. That licence could be withdrawn from offenders. Secondly, they have proposed the imposition of a 6 mph speed limit for all powered craft, except for those driven by persons who hold the appropriate level of the Royal Yachting Association's power boat certificate of competence.

The lake users believe that those measures will provide the board with significant additional controls designed to improve safety and to eliminate from the lake what I have described as the cowboy element. I am glad that the appropriate committee of the Lake District planning board agreed at today's meeting to consider those proposals seriously, and has deferred an endorsement of the 10 mph speed limit until a future meeting of the whole of the board in January.

In the meantime, I urge the Minister to do his best to encourage a sensible compromise in this difficult matter because many jobs are at stake. I am aware that he may tell us that, as a Minister, he has a potential judicial role but I am sure that he could use his good offices in the meantime. The new rules would demand more stringent enforcement of the rules on the lake. That would have to be accepted and paid for in licence fees by those who wish to continue to use power boats on the lake. It could be expensive, but I regard that as a small price to pay for sensible controls on the lake.

I shall be glad to discuss the issues sensibly with the planning board. I know that it is keen to introduce a private Bill in the near future and I am happy to discuss that with it. However, I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to try to ensure that the people who enjoy sports are not driven from the lake by what I regard as an unreasonable d decision.

9.16 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

I shall do my best to restrict my remarks in view of the many hon. Members who wish to speak. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) into the subject of Lakes Windermere and Ullswater or any other attractive parts of his constituency.

None of us can ignore the fact that the level of sport in schools is disappointingly low. Making physical education a compulsory part of the curriculum—although welcome —is no substitute for the opportunities previously available to school children. It is not significant or, indeed, helpful to analyse how such circumstances have occurred. It is much more profitable to consider ways of remedying a situation generally regarded as unfortunate.

If it is no longer possible through the schools to interest young people in sport to the same extent, how else can we do so? One way, which would result inevitably in a substantial increase in participation, is the use of the network of local sports clubs and governing bodies in the United Kingdom. The provision of development officers for governing bodies and the provision of development officers in local sports clubs could make a substantial contribution to the alleviation of what is generally regarded as a problem.

I pause only to say that development—a word frequently used in the context of sport and recreation—is by definition a time-consuming occupation. It requires considerable expertise and people of particular talent and ability. Merely to talk about development does not mean, of course, that development will be achieved. Nevertheless, I believe that the existing network of local sports clubs and governing bodies is the best and most immediate way to remedy the defects in young people's participation in sport.

One requirement is for sports clubs to be healthy. One way in which the Government could assist in their health would be to end what I regard as the fiscal nonsense of local sports clubs having to pay corporation tax on any interest that they might acquire by putting their funds in deposit accounts. If they were granted that benefit, they would be able to use the money much more profitably and the treasurers of local sports clubs would also be absolved of the additional burden of trying to keep proper accounts.

We want better access to facilities and the Minister was right to recognise that there is all-party agreement that section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 should be modified to permit much more dual use of educational facilities. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) appointed me to the Sports Council in 1965, the first meeting to which I went was concerned with dual use of education facilities. The principal obstacle was the fact that no one was willing to pay the overtime of the janitors. I suspect that in many cases that is still an obstacle. It makes one feel somewhat discouraged that we have not been able to overcome an obstacle which, on the face of it, appears to be capable of being overcome without much difficulty.

Another element is the provision of facilities. The truth is that only the local authorities have the financial muscle to provide the large-scale facilities necessary for sport and recreation. The Minister mentioned that he had visited Harrogate. I visited it earlier this year and was taken to see two swimming pools. One had recently been built to the most modern standards. The other pool was built approximately 20 years ago. The architecture is beginning to look dated but, more significantly, the nature of the provision made at that time is no longer appropriate to what is necessary in the 1990s. The upkeep of those premises has become a considerable drain. Many of the sports facilities that were built by local authorities in the past 20 years now desperately need replacing. Unless local authorities are given the funds or the permission to proceed to replace the facilities, we shall have a gradually depreciating stock of swimming pools, running tracks and sports halls.

One notable omission from the debate has been the fact that so many young women are lost to sport. The fallout rate between school and adulthood among the female population is much greater than among the male population. It must be an important part of Government policy to try to encourage young girls to continue with sporting and recreational activities. If the health of the nation is to be improved by sport and recreation, the health of the 52 per cent. of the nation represented by the female population is an important consideration.

We should not let this occasion pass without recognising, as has already been done to some extent, the extraordinary contribution that many schoolteachers make to sport in schools. I have fairly close links with the Scottish Schools Athletic Association. The secretary of that association is a schoolteacher and I reckon that he does 20 to 25 hours a week unpaid voluntary work to keep athletics in Scottish schools at the strength that it presently enjoys. Many people make a remarkable contribution and it is right that we should acknowledge it on occasions such as this.

It is true that the Government have funded the Sports Council for the ensuing year at the predicted rate of inflation. However, the chairman of the Sports Council was concerned that there was no opportunity for expansion. That may be why Mr. Yarranton, who could reasonably be described as being not one of nature's rebels, described what the Government had offered as a "kick in the teeth". As president of the Rugby Football Union, he may be better qualified than many to recognise a kick in the teeth. The previous Minister for the Arts was able to obtain three-year funding for the arts. Would not it be an important contribution to the development of sport in the United Kingdom to give the Sports Council a period over which it could plan its activities? I refer, of course, to the Sports Council not only in London, but in Scotland.

I look forward to the day when the Government publish their proposed legislation in relation to the protection of young people from the evils of anabolic steroids. Although the regime of testing has proved remarkably successful and effective, a whole population of people who use gymnasiums and who do not fall within that regime are undoubtedly subject to the temptation to use anabolic steroids. The Government will have to consider the need to deal with that problem in due course. All the anecdotal evidence that comes my way suggests that a considerable problem exists.

I am agnostic on the question of a national lottery. Some people in my party are enthusiastic about it, but as the whole basis of our legislation on gaming is to provide only sufficient facilities for gaming to meet an existing demand, there may be great legislative problems if in promoting a lottery there is any suggestion that interest in gaming may be encouraged or advanced. That is a matter of principle which perhaps should be dealt with on another occasion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell

The hon. Gentleman managed to intervene at the beginning of the debate. Since then he must have had a pressing engagement outside. It would be unhelpful to other hon. Members if I gave way now.

Mr. Bottomley

I have been here from the beginning of the debate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to give way, I understand that, but I wish that he would not make other remarks.

Mr. Campbell

I must press on, because I want to deal with international events. By a strange stroke of good fortune, I failed by only one vote to be selected chairman of the company that ran the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. Someone up there must have had my best interests at heart.

Anyone with any connection with the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh knows that the consequences of that financial debacle will be felt in Scotland for a long time. Anyone who knows of the difficulties through which Sheffield went before it could stage the world student games knows that cities will be reluctant to apply for such events.

I welcome what I hope was an open-minded statement by the Minister about the Government's attitude to Manchester. I have nothing but the highest regard for Bob Scott and the others who support him, but how much more likely Manchester would be to win the competition to host the Olympic games if it were shown that the Government supported the bid not only psychologically and emotionally but with real and substantial financial backing.

In Great Britain enterprises such as hosting international events look realistic only if they have proper Government backing. We have no Coca-Cola company in this country, as they have in Atlanta. Unless the Government are willing to open their cheque book, I fear that such enterprises are unlikely—

Mr. Atkins

How much?

Mr. Campbell

I have not seen the most recent figures. If it cost, say, £20 million or £30 million to bring the Olympic games to Manchester, I would regard that as an investment well worth making, not only for Manchester but for the United Kingdom as a whole.

On Monday I attended a seminar organised by the Sports Council in Scotland. The Minister of State responsible for sport in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), preceded me there and addressed the delegates. It was clear that he had not satisfied them that the Government's position on sport was as suggested in the amendment tonight.

I suspect that if the Minister attended the annual conference of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which is now taking place, he would not find that audience as receptive as his Back-Benchers have been to what he has said today. The public—the audience that the Government should satisfy about sport—are far from satisfied. The sportsmen and sportswomen of this country look to the Government for a much better deal.

9.29 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will forgive me if I do not follow him, except to inform him that I have been in Yeovil over the past two days. I suggest that he divert some of his energies there, with a view to trying to save his leader's seat, because the news that I get from that part of the world is that the Conservatives are going to regain that seat with a handsome majority.

I apologise to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) because, in our last debate on sport, I described his speech as valedictory. Some might say, having heard him tonight, that it was a pity that it was not, but it is nice to see him still in office.

One of the advantages of a debate such as this—and it would be churlish not to thank the Opposition for allowing us this debate—is that it enables us to see the prospective candidates for the Front Bench sitting like vultures behind the right hon. Gentleman waiting their turn. Inevitably, they are led by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who has been a long-term tryer in the field along with a number of other hon. Members with familiar faces. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), who is coming up fast on the rails and who may pre-empt them when the time comes, is missing. I should add that, when the time comes, the Labour party will not be in government but will again be in opposition.

Conservative Members rather resent the Opposition's pious attitude, based on the assumption that sport is their subject and that the Conservative party is not concerned with it. We have had five excellent Ministers in 12 years. The reason for that is that they have all put such energy into their task and have initiated so many varied policies that, from sheer exhaustion, they were bound to be moved on.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the present Minister for Sport, who has brought a freshness to the post and who has tremendous support throughout the sporting world. It is a blatant untruth to say that my hon. Friend does not have that support and that he is not welcome wherever he goes in pursuit of the excellent work that he is doing. The fact that we now have a Prime Minister who is passionately interested in sport, as he showed in his generosity to it as Chancellor of the Exchequer, has reinforced the view that the Government consider sport a high priority and will continue to do so after they are returned to office at the next general election.

Much has rightly been made of the somewhat hollow document produced by the Labour party some years ago. I have obtained a copy of Labour's "Charter for Sport", signed by someone who claims to be one of the authors —although that claim has not been confirmed by the other authors. That pretty document contains many expansive words. It is peppered with such phrases as "new energy", "new ideas", "promoting excellence" and "promoting achievement", and all of us would support those aims. But, typically for a Labour party policy document, it is long on rhetoric but contains very few new ideas. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the majority of the thrust of the document has already been adopted by the Government anyway, so there is nothing really fresh about the rather hollow words contained in it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said in a succinct intervention, what the document omits is any form of costing. We do not know the shadow Chancellor's view of it, because he has not commented on it. Full as the document is of flannel, it is basically a blank cheque for sport. The right hon. Member for Small Heath and his hon. Friends have given us no indication this evening of costing. Most people who understand sport and take an interest in it will realise that the expense that the document implies is substantial. We have no guarantee—certainly the right hon. Gentleman has given us none—that a future Labour Chancellor could fund all these grand ideas.

My main argument with the document is that it is a document for administrators and bureaucrats rather than participants and players. It talks about the appointment of more sports development officers and about greater local council involvement. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath had something to do with the document, it is inevitably rather wordy, but its general tone is a scream for expenditure and interference by the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say that, even when he introduced the document, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see more ministerial influence.

The Opposition talk rather grandly about Government support for major sports, but the reason that sport in this country has been so successful in the past few years is that the various sports have learned to live on their own, to find their own resources and to use the money that is available to them from the taxpayer to the best advantage. I fear that, if the Labour party ever came to power and that Government money became available, such initiatives would fade away. That is why the document has rightly been dismissed by those who understand sport and who are perhaps looking to the Labour party for something more than simply empty rhetoric and borrowed phrases.

I should now like to touch briefly on two items of policy, both of which are dealt with in the document and motion. The first relates to playing fields. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that he had published a directive, which has been reinforced, stating that schools and education authorities should seriously consider disposing of school playing fields according to the needs of the area. I was delighted when he initiated the register of school playing fields because, as hon. Members will remember, I sought to introduce a Bill to that effect many years ago. but it did not find any favour then.

We must know how many school playing fields we have and whether they are available. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend and the Government to bend over backwards to persuade the local authorities to preserve the playing fields. The empty rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who avoided the point about instructions to Labour councils, must be noted. He must know that, in Nottingham, school playing fields have been sold in direct opposition to the views of the local electorate. On the whole, such things have happened where Labour authorities have not followed that dictum or taken the Department's circular No. 909 to heart. At least there seems to be some consensus in the House now on this important matter, and I hope that that will continue.

I turn now to the basis of South Africa's return to international sport—[Interruption.] Well, I did not wish to disappoint Opposition Members, and especially not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who I know has taken such a keen interest in this matter. The part of Labour's document that I applaud deals with this matter. However, as usual, the Labour party seems to be trying to take credit for the fact that South Africa is now back in the international fold. In fact, it was the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his influence on the Commonwealth countries that has led to South Africa's return to international sport.

The tragedy is that, if the Gleneagles declaration on sport, to give it its full title, had not been signed, and if Opposition Members had given more encouragement to the sports bodies in South Africa which were desperately trying to integrate and which had eradicated all forms of racism within their sport, but which were penalised by Opposition Members on the basis not of their own sins but of those of their politicians, South Africa would have returned to international sport much earlier. None the less, I welcome the Opposition's late conversion, because we all look forward to South Africa's participation in every international sport.

The Government have every reason to be proud of their record. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have made a substantial investment in sport, both through the Sports Council and in terms of local government expenditure. The numerous initiatives of previous Ministers, and especially that of my hon. Friend with his champion coaching scheme, have already borne fruit. The encouragement of private participation—on the basis that the Minister of Sport's job is to encourage and not necessarily to intervene directly himself—has been welcome and has led to our excellent sporting record during the past decade. With my hon. Friend in office, we can look forward to some exciting times and to some new initiatives and policies that will carry sport forward into the year 2000 in the excellent heart in which we find it today.

9.39 pm

Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central)

Before I discuss the world student games in Sheffield, I ask the Minister to consider the terms of reference for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts as they relate to association football. There is a problem, because the terms of reference debar the foundation from supporting and financing association football. They refer association football to the Football Trust, but that deals with post-Taylor problems. The Sports Council has also expressed concern at the way in which the foundation is allocating the council's finance, which does not take cognisance of its strategic planning and the priority areas for sports development highlighted by it, after much consultation. I should be obliged if the Minister would send me a letter about that.

There were almost as many adjectives as fireworks flying around the World Student Games closing ceremony at Don Valley Stadium—brilliant, fantastic, super, terrific. And more. But if I were asked for a one word, stone cold sober, after the event verdict on the Games and its associated festival, my word would be: unbelievable. Did it all really happen here in stolid, workaday Sheffield? In 40 years as a Sheffield journalist I have never seen anything bring the city to life the way it was brought to life during the Games fortnight. Twenty years ago, ten years ago, even one year ago, I would not have believed it possible… From beginning to end the whole spectacle engendered some kind of magic that pulled ordinary people along with it. That was the judgment of Peter Harvey, a reporter with the Sheffield Star, a newspaper not known for its constant support for the games. Nevertheless, it reflected the views of the vast majority of Sheffield.

We in Sheffield, with your support, Mr. Speaker, staged the world student games in July. It was the largest sporting event in the world this year and it was a huge success by any standard. It is right to put the finance behind the games into order. The Minister said that the Sports Council gave £3 million to the games. That is true. It gave that money for the purchase of equipment and that has now been dispersed to various areas in Yorkshire and throughout the United Kingdom. The construction of the new facilities had a capital cost of £ 147 million. It cost just over £20 million to run the games.

The people of Sheffield have rightly asked why, in 1987, the city of Sheffield made a bid for the world student games. By the middle of the 1980s we had lost 40,000 jobs from the steel and engineering industries and unemployment was at 15 per cent. In parts of my constituency the level of unemployment was in excess of 40 per cent. Demoralisation was inevitable, but by that time the city had gone into partnership with the private sector. It had already developed a strategy on how we could mangage the necessary change to bring Sheffield out of decline.

That change led to diversity in the economic industrial base so that the city had a higher profile. In turn, that led to a return in civic pride. We developed centres of excellence, in which the world student games played an important part. What has been the result? Inward investment into Sheffield from 1985 to 1991 has amounted to £2.5 billion. The Government will be interested to know that the ratio of public to private investment and the leverage factor is 1:3.5. That compares with any of the regeneration schemes.

An independent study by the university of Sheffield on the impact of that investment on employment prospects and the economy revealed an advantage in terms of job creation—6,500 jobs were created in Sheffield and more than 11,000 within the region. The Government should also note that each job has cost £4,000 less than those created by the construction-oriented initiatives around the country.

The new facilities are generating activity levels well beyond expectation. National and international events have been attracted to the new facilities at Sheffield, ranging from public cricket to international table tennis. The arena, which is part of the new complex, can house 12,000 people. It now stages sell-out concerts by top pop stars and philharmonic orchestras. The impact on the local economy, hotels, restaurants and other general services has been immense. That shows that a venue like the arena was necessary in the north of England. For example, of the 60,000 people who attended the Dire Straits concert held in the arena, 70 per cent. came from outside Sheffield, which shows the spending power now coming to Sheffield.

Sheffield is becoming one of the top sporting venues not only in Britain but in the world. The indoor arena to which I referred doubles as an ice rink. Its playing surface is versatile enough to be used for basketball and volleyball and this Sunday the Soviet gymnastics team will perform there. We have also developed an international standard tennis and netball centre and the Don Valley stadium is the first purpose-designed athletics stadium to be built in this country for many years. It is also the home of the Sheffield Eagles. It staged the McVities international match which attracted the largest athletics crowd in the United Kingdom since the 1950s. Again, that shows that people in the north of England enjoy their sport.

The Ponds Forge international swimming complex is the only swimming complex in the United Kingdom with a 50 m, 10-lane pool. It will host the 1993 European swimming championships. In technical and design terms, the complex is said to be the best in the world and our British craftsmen can be very proud of it.

Two other centres have been built and the Lyceum theatre has been refurbished. The cost of all those facilities was £147 million, which is less than was spent on the stadium that housed the football world cup final in Italy. Although the facilities have been built to the highest standards, they have been designed to produce the most flexible and adaptable facilities so that young and old, able and disabled, people can use them.

A few weeks ago I was privileged to watch disabled sports at Ponds Forge. I watched a young wheelchair-bound lad absailing, which is one of the activities for which the complex has been adapted for disabled children. The smile on his face showed that his achievement was as great as that felt by Roger Bannister when he broke the four-minute mile. We must consider such people and ensure that sport is accessible to all.

Those facilities have lifted not only Sheffield's profile but that of the United Kingdom. However, the Government provided not a penny of assistance for the Ponds Forge swimming complex. The Government should review their position and consider where they can provide assistance, because that would have an immense impact on the world swimming and diving scene. The Public Works Loan Board should be at least one avenue of support for funding those facilities.

We experienced some difficulties between 1987 and the opening ceremony in July this year. One or two people fell by the wayside, but one of our biggest problems was the lack of television coverage. Apart from Yorkshire Television and BBC North, both of which did an extremely good job, the lack of coverage cost us dearly in terms of our inability to attract sponsorship. The main television channel covering sporting events of that nature should question some of its strategic planning. In late 1990, "World in Action" wheeled out three disillusioned people to slag off and undermine the games. One of them was Mr. Peter Burns, the former chief executive of the games company, who was employed by that company in 1988–89 but sacked for incompetence. He had jointly been appointed by the private and public sectors: ordered 40 cars for the staff, and he had a flat in the City which was funded by the world student games. He then decided to decorate it at a cost of £25,000. That is why he got the sack. Those were the sort of undermining activities that television companies and programmes such as "World in Action" were conducting.

The world student games constituted the peg on which Sheffield hung the development of all the facilities. If someone had predicted the worst case scenario when Sheffield made its bid in 1987, it would have been realised in 1991 when the games were staged. The city had begun to build £147 million worth of facilities with no Government support, no national television coverage and a mostly hostile press, when the country was in recession and local government finances were being savagely cut. However, Sheffield is a city with a vision and the partnership of public and private interests were determined to lift the city out of depression so that it could stage the biggest multi-sporting event in the world this year.

There were 6,000 participants from 110 countries and 7,000 volunteers at the games. The games were opened on 14 July by our patron, Princess Anne, who stuck with Sheffield through thick and thin and showed the way to promote sport. At the games 100 embassies were represented and seven Sports Ministers from around the world attended, with a considerable number of International Olympic Committee members and representatives of many sporting organisations from around the world.

I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will acknowledge that, for the first, time Namibia performed on the international stage and, for the first time, a united Germany put a team into a multi-sport event. But no senior Minister was present on 14 July. Ministers of Sport from around the world were asking why there were no British Sports Ministers or senior Ministers present at the opening ceremony.

Mr. Atkins

It was the British grand prix.

Mr. Caborn

That is the answer.

Half a million people went through the turnstiles, which is surely a record for British athletics and sport. The opening and closing ceremonies were sell-outs and 10,000 people watched the athletics each day. The biggest crowds ever watched the volleyball and basketball games and 3,000 people watched the swimming and diving event. More importantly, 6,000 young athletes—tomorrow's leaders and decision makers—returned to their respective 110 countries with a feeling of good will and warmth for the city of Sheffield and Britain.

To quote just one of many such quotes, a Lebanese delegate said: Without the World Student Games we would never have known the warmth and goodwill of the people of Britain. That spells out the message.

The Police Federation magazine Police, has a lovely picture on its cover which shows what the games were all about: a police horse on which a young athlete is riding. The headline states "Policing the Forgotten Games". Inside, an article states: The 16th World Student Games … took place in July and to the surprise of many people outside the City of Sheffield, which hosted the event, they were a resounding success. It is to the shame of the British media and the Government which virtually ignored the games (only sending the Minister of Sport at the last minute to the closing ceremony because Neil Kinnock was making his second visit there) and to the commercial sponsors who cold shouldered the occasion, that an opportunity to beat the drum for British sporting interests and organisation prowess was largely missed. The article concluded: Having confounded the snide critics and Jeremiahs by staging perhaps the most outstanding sporting event ever held in Britain, (that includes the 1948 Olympics, the World Cup of 1966 and two Commonwealth Games) the forward thinking civic leaders of Sheffield may well be wondering What do we do for an encore?' Next time will the rest of Britain have the decency to take an interest?

9.53 pm

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

In the few concluding minutes of the debate I give my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). This must be his last speech on sport in the House. In announcing his retirement he has left a long and costly demob note for one of his apprentices on the Back Benches to take over. I should he interested in hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on how the Labour party could finance what sounded like a false prospectus.

I shall speak about two issues and then give the Front-Bench spokesmen time to respond, unless of course they want to send us notes through the post. Hon. Members have spoken about school sport. About two decades ago, there was a great lack of competitive sport in schools. It was said that the Inner London education authority was one of the ringleaders in the campaign against competitive sport, but that was disputed by the right hon. Member for Small Heath.

In 1988, a Mr. Desmond Nuttall, the former head of research in ILEA, summed up the Labour attitude to competition when he said: You can't have a competitive system that condemns a large proportion to failure". I can speak from personal experience of an outfit called the Inner-London Teachers Association. It said: The hidden curriculum of PE does more than its fair share to produce and reproduce the social and psychological basis necessary to sustain a system populated by ruthless captains of industry, technocrats and subservient proletarians. That association wanted to stop all that. That was the position that Britain had reached on competitive sport.

I recently attended a major event during the health and fitness week organised by one of the emerging inner London education authorities. There were 1,000 children at the event which launched a campaign continuing throughout the year to introduce youngsters to new-image rugby, and it had the support of the Rugby Football Union. Next year, there will be swimming and sports hall athletics supported by governing bodies, and the summer term will feature cricket and field athletics. In that borough 1,000 children have been enthused. I am sure that it will not surprise the House to know that it is the London borough of Wandsworth. More power to its elbow. It is essential for children to participate in sport beyond that stage and the clubs must be prepared to welcome young people and to encourage them to continue with whatever sport they take up at school.

I am surprised that neither the Opposition motion nor that of my party has mentioned the very thing that would produce facilities and money for sport—a national lottery. That opportunity has been missed for a long time and it could produce £1.1 billion. At the moment, only England and Albania are missing the chance. If we do not introduce a lottery the 6 million letters a year coming to Britain from abroad asking us to pay for foreign lotteries will increase. It is disgraceful that we are not committed to such a lottery.

9.58 pm

Mr. Atkins

We have had a good and lengthy debate on a wide range of sports issues. Labour's charter for sport has been mentioned. As I said earlier, it is full of contradictions in relation to whether there should be more or less ministerial involvement. We have heard about Labour's inaction in contributing much to the House since I have been the Minister for Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, Labour's charter is uncosted and we do not know what the shadow Treasury Minister thinks about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said, it is full of prejudices in relation to Cleveland and that is indicative of the support that Labour authorities do not give to sport. Above all, it is unashamed plagiarism of ideas that are now Government policy. We have demonstrated our commitment by money, by the inclusion of physical education in the national curriculum, by champion coaching and by what the Prime Minister and I have done for international sport.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) accused me of not being present at the opening of the world student games. I was at the British grand prix, which was attended by 150,000 people—somewhat more than there were in Sheffield. I made three visits to Sheffield and I am confident that the grand prix, which earns a lot of money for the country, has just as much importance as the student games.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 329.

Division No. 20]	[10 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)	Crowther, Stan
Allen, Graham	Cunningham, Dr John
Anderson, Donald	Dalyell, Tam
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Darling, Alistair
Armstrong, Hilary	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ashton, Joe	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Dewar, Donald
Barron, Kevin	Dixon, Don
Battle, John	Dobson, Frank
Beckett, Margaret	Doran, Frank
Bell, Stuart	Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Benton, Joseph	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Bermingham, Gerald	Eadie, Alexander
Bidwell, Sydney	Eastham, Ken
Blair, Tony	Enright, Derek
Blunkett, David	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Boateng, Paul	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Boyes, Roland	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Bradley, Keith	Fatchett, Derek
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Fisher, Mark
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Flannery, Martin
Caborn, Richard	Foster, Derek
Callaghan, Jim	Foulkes, George
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Fraser, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Fyfe, Maria
Canavan, Dennis	Galbraith, Sam
Cartwright, John	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	George, Bruce
Clelland, David	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Cohen, Harry	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Gordon, Mildred
Cox, Tom	Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mowlam, Marjorie
Grocott, Bruce	Mullin, Chris
Hain, Peter	Murphy, Paul
Hardy, Peter	Nellist, Dave
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	O'Brien, William
Hinchliffe, David	O'Hara, Edward
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	O'Neill, Martin
Home Robertson, John	Parry, Robert
Hood, Jimmy	Patchett, Terry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Pendry, Tom
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Pike, Peter L.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Doug	Prescott, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Primarolo, Dawn
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Illsley, Eric	Radice, Giles
Ingram, Adam	Randall, Stuart
Janner, Greville	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Reid, Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Richardson, Jo
Kilfoyle, Peter	Robertson, George
Kumar, Dr. Ashok	Rogers, Allan
Lambie, David	Rooker, Jeff
Lamond, James	Rooney, Terence
Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Leighton, Ron	Rowlands, Ted
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Ruddock, Joan
Lewis, Terry	Sedgemore, Brian
Litherland, Robert	Sheerman, Barry
Livingstone, Ken	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Skinner, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McAllion, John	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
McCartney, Ian	Snape, Peter
Macdonald, Calum A.	Spearing, Nigel
McFall, John	Stott, Roger
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Strang, Gavin
McKelvey, William	Straw, Jack
McLeish, Henry	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
McMaster, Gordon	Turner, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin	Vaz, Keith
McWilliam, John	Walley, Joan
Madden, Max	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Marek, Dr John	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Wilson, Brian
Martlew, Eric	Winnick, David
Maxton, John	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Meacher, Michael	Worthington, Tony
Meale, Alan	Wray, Jimmy
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.
Morgan, Rhodri
Morley, Elliot

NOES
Adley, Robert	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Aitken, Jonathan	Baldry, Tony
Alexander, Richard	Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Batiste, Spencer
Allason, Rupert	Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Alton, David	Bellingham, Henry
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bellotti, David
Amess, David	Bendall, Vivian
Amos, Alan	Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arbuthnot, James	Benyon, W.
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bevan, David Gilroy
Arnold, Sir Thomas	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ashby, David	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Aspinwall, Jack	Body, Sir Richard
Atkins, Robert	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim	Gill, Christopher
Bottomley, Peter	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bowis, John	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Gorst, John
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Brazier, Julian	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bright, Graham	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gregory, Conal
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Ground, Patrick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Grylls, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Budgen, Nicholas	Hague, William
Burns, Simon	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Burt, Alistair	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Butcher, John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butler, Chris	Hannam, John
Butterfill, John	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Harris, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hayes, Jerry
Carr, Michael	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carrington, Matthew	Hayward, Robert
Carttiss, Michael	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cash, William	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Chapman, Sydney	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Churchill, Mr	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hind, Kenneth
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hordern, Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cormack, Patrick	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Couchman, James	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Cran, James	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Curry, David	Hunter, Andrew
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Irvine, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Irving, Sir Charles
Day, Stephen	Jack, Michael
Devlin, Tim	Jackson, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey	Janman, Tim
Dicks, Terry	Jesse1, Toby
Dorrell, Stephen	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Johnston, Sir Russell
Dover, Den	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dunn, Bob	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dykes, Hugh	Kennedy, Charles
Eggar, Tim	Key, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter	Kilfedder, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Evennett, David	Kirkhope, Timothy
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Kirkwood, Archy
Fallon, Michael	Knapman, Roger
Farr, Sir John	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Favell, Tony	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Fearn, Ronald	Knowles, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Knox, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fishburn, John Dudley	Lawrence, Ivan
Fookes, Dame Janet	Lee, John (Pendle)
Forman, Nigel	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Forth, Eric	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Franks, Cecil	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Freeman, Roger	Lord, Michael
French, Douglas	Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Fry, Peter	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Gardiner, Sir George	MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Madel, David	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mans, Keith	Shersby, Michael
Maples, John	Sims, Roger
Marland, Paul	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Marlow, Tony	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mates, Michael	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Maude, Hon Francis	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Squire, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Miller, Sir Hal	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mills, Iain	Steen, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman	Stern, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Stevens, Lewis
Mitchell, Sir David	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Moate, Roger	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Monro, Sir Hector	Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moore, Rt Hon John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Morrison, Sir Charles	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Moss, Malcolm	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Neale, Sir Gerrard	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Thorne, Neil
Nicholls, Patrick	Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Thurnham, Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Norris, Steve	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Tracey, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip	Tredinnick, David
Page, Richard	Trippier, David
Paice, James	Trotter, Neville
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Twinn, Dr Ian
Patnick, Irvine	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)	Viggers, Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Pawsey, James	Wallace, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Waller, Gary
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Walters, Sir Dennis
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Portillo, Michael	Warren, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)	Watts, John
Price, Sir David	Wells, Bowen
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Wheeler, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim	Whitney, Ray
Redwood, John	Widdecombe, Ann
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Wiggin, Jerry
Rhodes James, Sir Robert	Wigley, Dafydd
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wilkinson, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Wilshire, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Winterton, Nicholas
Ross, William (Londonderry E)	Wolfson, Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Wood, Timothy
Rost, Peter	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Rowe, Andrew	Yeo, Tim
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Younger, Rt Hon George
Sackville, Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Tellers for the Noes:
Sayeed, Jonathan	Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 67.

Division No. 21]	[10.13 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Favell, Tony
Aitken, Jonathan	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Alexander, Richard	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Fishburn, John Dudley
Allason, Rupert	Fookes, Dame Janet
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Forman, Nigel
Amess, David	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Amos, Alan	Forth, Eric
Arbuthnot, James	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ashby, David	Fox, Sir Marcus
Aspinwall, Jack	Franks, Cecil
Atkins, Robert	Freeman, Roger
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	French, Douglas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Gale, Roger
Baldry, Tony	Gardiner, Sir George
Batiste, Spencer	Gill, Christopher
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Bellingham, Henry	Goodlad, Alastair
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Benyon, W.	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gorst, John
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Body, Sir Richard	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Boswell, Tim	Gregory, Conal
Bottomley, Peter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)	Ground, Patrick
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Grylls, Michael
Bowis, John	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Hague, William
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brazier, Julian	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham	Hannam, John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Buck, Sir Antony	Harris, David
Budgen, Nicholas	Haselhurst, Alan
Burns, Simon	Hayes, Jerry
Burt, Alistair	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Butcher, John	Hayward, Robert
Butler, Chris	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Butterfill, John	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Carrington, Matthew	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Cash, William	Hind, Kenneth
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Chapman, Sydney	Hordern, Sir Peter
Churchill, Mr	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Colvin, Michael	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Conway, Derek	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hunter, Andrew
Couchman, James	Irvine, Michael
Cran, James	Jack, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Janman, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Jessel, Toby
Davis, David (Boothterry)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Stephen	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Devlin, Tim	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Dicks, Terry	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kilfedder, James
Dover, Den	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dunn, Bob	Kirkhope, Timothy
Durant, Sir Anthony	Knapman, Roger
Dykes, Hugh	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Eggar, Tim	Knowles, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter	Knox, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Evennett, David	Lawrence, Ivan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Lee, John (Pendle)
Fallon, Michael	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Farr, Sir John	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lord, Michael	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Shersby, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick	Sims, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Madel, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mans, Keith	Squire, Robin
Maples, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Marland, Paul	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Steen, Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis	Stern, Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Stevens, Lewis
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Miller, Sir Hal	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mills, Iain	Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mitchell, Sir David	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Moate, Roger	Temple-Morris, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Morrison, Sir Charles	Thorne, Neil
Moss, Malcolm	Thornton, Malcolm
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Thurnham, Peter
Neale, Sir Gerrard	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Nicholls, Patrick	Tracey, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Tredinnick, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Trippier, David
Norris, Steve	Trotter, Neville
Page, Richard	Twinn, Dr Ian
Paice, James	Viggers, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Patnick, Irvine	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)	Waller, Gary
Patten, Rt Hon John	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Watts, John
Pawsey, James	Wells, Bowen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Wheeler, Sir John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Widdecombe, Ann
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wiggin, Jerry
Portillo, Michael	Wilkinson, John
Price, Sir David	Wilshire, David
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Rathbone, Tim	Winterton, Nicholas
Redwood, John	Wood, Timothy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Rhodes James, Sir Robert	Yeo, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Younger, Rt Hon George
Rossi, Sir Hugh
Rowe, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.
Sackville, Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Tim

NOES
Alton, David	Dixon, Don
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Battle, John	Eastham, Ken
Bellotti, David	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Benton, Joseph	Fearn, Ronald
Blunkett, David	Fraser, John
Boyes, Roland	Fyfe, Maria
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Canavan, Dennis	Graham, Thomas
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Carr, Michael	Haynes, Frank
Cohen, Harry	Hinchliffe, David
Crowther, Stan	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Dalyell, Tam	Home Robertson, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Illsley, Eric	Pendry, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell	Pike, Peter L.
Kennedy, Charles	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Leighton, Ron	Primarolo, Dawn
Lewis, Terry	Robertson, George
Livsey, Richard	Skinner, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
McAvoy, Thomas	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
McFall, John	Stephen, Nicol
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McMaster, Gordon	Wareing, Robert N.
Madden, Max	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Maxton, John	Wigley, Dafydd
Meacher, Michael	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun	Tellers for the Noes:
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.
Morgan, Rhodri
Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House welcomes the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to sport in the United Kingdom in the provision of grant to the Sports Council for 1992–93 of £48.8 million, which has been increased in line with forecast inflation next year, complemented by new funds of the order of £40 million this year from the Sports and Arts Foundation and the £20 million per annum additional money from the Football Trust, and a further £0.7 million for the Champion Coaching Scheme; recognises the important decision to make physical education a mandatory subject in the National Curriculum from the start of the next academic year and the lead given by Her Majesty's Government in international matters such as drug abuse and the participation of South Africa in international sport; and further believes that Her Majesty's Government has demonstrated its high priorities in the sporting field as opposed to the out-dated, uncosted, bureaucratic, interfering and irrelevant policies of Her Majesty's Opposition and its allies.