School Playing Fields: Preservation (Hansard, 29 October 1996)

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it is the Government's policy that playing fields that schools need should be retained. Those playing fields are protected by the school premises regulations. The Government believe that local education authorities and schools are best placed to take management decisions affecting their assets within the constraints of the school premises regulations.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that on average two playing fields per week are sold by local authorities and school governors? On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister encouraging sports in schools, and for teachers, youth leaders and so forth to participate in sport; but, on the other hand, because of inadequate funding, local authorities are forced to sell their playing fields.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I totally reject the noble Lord's allegation that there is inadequate funding in education for local education authorities. They received an excellent settlement last year involving considerable sums of money, and it is up to them to spend that money appropriately on providing education. We are aware of anxieties caused because a number of playing fields have been sold in the past, and that is why we have regulations concerning the minimum size for school playing fields. Local education authorities cannot go below that size. Because of the anxieties, last August we brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee on any sales that may take place, and in the coming months we shall certainly monitor the situation with the Sports Council as statutory consultee. It would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord seems to be suggesting, to place a blanket ban on sales. Sales can often lead to further and better provision elsewhere.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, is it not a situation where the Prime Minister, with the support of all parties, wants to preserve playing fields but that on average two playing fields a week are disappearing from schools? Is not there a case for a national policy? It is extremely ineffective government for the Prime Minister to be saying one thing and at the same time, for whatever reason, local education authorities to be selling off the playing fields.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we have a national policy, which I explained in some detail in my original Answer; that is, that schools must retain a minimum need. It would be wrong to place a blanket ban on further sales when schools could make use of those resources in other ways for better educational provision or even better sporting provision. In August of this year we brought in 229 the Sports Council as a statutory consultee on future sales. We shall be examining how that process works over the coming months. If it is necessary to tighten up the regulations—though I do not accept the noble Lord's figures about the number of playing fields we are losing—because we are losing excessive playing fields, we shall take that action.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn is quite right—most of these playing fields have been sold off in order to raise vital finance to keep the schools to which they belong in a better state? Now that we have the National Lottery, which appears to be rather generous to certain sections of the community, would it not be right to consider making a priority the replacement of some of these playing fields through National Lottery funds? Many of these schools are in inner city areas where there is little play space of any kind. Is it not time that the Government acted definitely and not in a half-hearted manner as appears to be the case at present?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not accept that we are acting in a half-hearted manner. As I made clear, we have minimum space regulations for playing fields. Schools must not fall below those minimum levels. However, I do not think it would be right then to forbid all further sales when those sales could be used to enhance education or even, for that matter, sporting provision both for the school and for the local community. The local community can very often make use of playing fields. I should not like to see the blanket ban for which the noble Lord seems to be asking. As to whether the National Lottery should provide funds, that idea could certainly be looked at where there are schools that are below the necessary minimum level. I accept that some have been below for historical reasons, particularly some in the inner cities.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no point in having playing fields unless there are teachers in these schools willing to teach and supervise organised games? Is that likely to happen when there are so-called educationalists saying that competitive games are bad for children's morale?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept that there are probably still a number of teachers of a certain political persuasion who refuse to take part in competitive sports of one kind or another. I suspect that that tradition is dying off. We are seeing more people taking a realistic approach to the teaching of sport; and certainly sport and competitive sport take their place in the national curriculum.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, can the Minister say what is the minimum standard for a school of 500 pupils? How many acres must it keep?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, without notice, I cannot answer that question. The standards are not purely in terms of acreage; they also relate to the condition of the 230 ground. It must be capable of taking so many days of such and such an activity at certain times of the year. However, if the noble Lord would like me to write in greater detail in relation, say, to a school of 500 situated possibly in Scotland or, for that matter, the north of England, I should be more than happy to do so.

§ Lord Howell
My Lords, is it not the case that when the Prime Minister published his document Raising the Game a year ago he very sensibly admitted that so many playing fields had been sold off to the detriment of British sport? He has been trying to rectify the situation since and should be supported—although most of the playing fields sold off are now car parks for Asda and other organisations. Now that the Government have brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee, will they go further? The Sports Council should have a duty laid upon it—a statutory duty if necessary—to intervene at planning tribunals, and Ministers should make it clear to planning inspectors that preserving playing fields is a prime object of government policy. If the Government do that they will have the support of the whole House.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord and I are very far apart. As I made clear, we brought in the Sports Council as a statutory consultee in August. It can bring issues of changes of use to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, should it feel it necessary to have a public inquiry. It would then be a matter for my right honourable friend to consider the wider issues at that public inquiry and make the appropriate decision.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Beloff, does my noble friend agree that this Question indicates the welcome conversion of the Benches opposite to the benefits of competition in our state schools? Does he share my hope that they may still come to appreciate also the benefits of streaming and selection?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we have pursued a great many reforms in education over the past 16 or 17 years. I think that virtually every single one of them was opposed at the time by the party opposite. I have to say to my noble friend that a few years later on each occasion they seem to come round to our way of thinking. No doubt we shall discuss these matters further this afternoon. But I welcome my noble friend's suggestion. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will come round to the virtues of selection, setting and streaming in due course.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, in the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, perhaps I may offer to the Minister the information which he seemed not to have to hand, quite naturally, and tell him that the regulations lay out a minimum requirement of one hectare for primary schools with up to 300 pupils? I hope he may find that of use. Does he recall that on 20th June last my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington asked him how many playing fields had been 231 sold since the issue of the Education (School Premises) Regulations? The Minister at that time was unable to confirm or deny my noble friend's figure of some 5,000 playing fields. Can he do so now?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, no, for the simple reason that we do not collect the figures centrally. As regards the first part of the question, the noble Lord gave only a partial answer. Of course the school playing fields regulations cover size; but—and this is very important—they also cover the condition of those playing fields in order to ensure that they are capable of being used for so many hours a week.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, I have been in the House longer than the Minister has, and I ask him to take note of what I have to say. When the Education Reform Bill and other Bills were going through the House, the Opposition opposed certain measures. It is since that time that the Government have come round to the Opposition's point of view. They have made the national curriculum less prescriptive and have changed the testing. They have come round to the Opposition's point of view in a great number of cases.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall accept that the noble Baroness has been here slightly longer than I have and I shall accept that the noble Baroness probably has slightly more experience of education Bills than I do. But I have to say that her view of what has happened is the most Humpty-Dumpty view of things I have ever heard in my life.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene since I, too, dealt with the Education Reform Bill. My noble friend's view is precisely right. I can still remember the occasion when an amendment to the Bill on the national curriculum, which was proposed by me and the late Lord Joseph, was opposed by the Government. All the Peers opposite who were not present for the debate then trooped into the Government Lobby and defeated us. But a couple of years went by and the Government completely changed the curriculum exactly along the lines my noble friend suggested.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I change not one word of what I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David.