| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.32 pm
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): It can be profoundly shocking for most hon. Members--who are very politically inclined--to discover that most of our constituents think that sport is far more important than politics. I am sure that we have all spent Saturday afternoons regretting that we are knocking on doors at a particular point in the calendar. However, most of my constituents who watch Question Time in this place consider it a form of sport, and rather enjoy the spectacle of events in the Chamber.
Sport is an important subject, and it is a pity that we do not debate it more often. It is vital to the health of our nation that we engage in sport. On 27 June 1997, the Secretary of State stated that 48 per cent. of men and40 per cent. of women are overweight. That cannot be a good thing. Sport is vital to the morale not only of our nation--to the various nations of the United Kingdom
--but also of our communities. It builds teamwork, discipline and confidence, which lead to better performance in other pursuits.
I have always been struck that, sometimes, people at school who are not the most academically inclined have good confidence when leaving school and going into work--throughout life--if they find a sport in which they excel.
The previous Government's record on sport was pretty good because the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), took sport very seriously. I am glad that sport has moved up the political agenda on both sides of the Chamber. In his years on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) did much to promote sport. I also associate myself with the comments about Denis Howell, who was an excellent Sports Minister--and is fondly remembered as the Minister for rain. He is the only person who could be appointed one week and have it rain the next. He was a substantial character in the House.
In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon promoted "Raising the Game", with its 15-point plan. It made an important proposal that Ofsted should look into what happens in sport and ensure that governing bodies report on sport in their annual reports. The national lottery was one of the most important aspects of what the previous Government did. It is fashionable to kick Camelot and the national lottery, but the lottery is extremely successful--the most successful in the world. It was up and running quicker than anyone expected, raising far more money than anyone expected for a range of good causes, including sport.
Mr. Spring:
Did my hon. Friend notice that the Minister for Sport made an intervention on financing of sport by the lottery, repeating what he had said during consideration of the National Lottery Bill? On Report, the Minister said that
Mr. Syms:
I noticed the Minister's comments, and I agree with my hon. Friend's telling point.
Of course, with all these things one has a debate and double counting, but it is a pity that, as I believe, the Government have started to move funds away from sport through the lottery, because they are rifling the lottery and directing money into many other areas.
Mr. Spring:
In that vein, the Secretary of State made an interesting comment about the role of NESTA being paid for from the lottery. NESTA may indeed provide some money for work on sports science and sports medicine, but the Secretary of State did not say that this was a matter of discretion for NESTA's chairman and board. That is obviously at odds with the Labour party's
Mr. Syms:
I am glad that my hon. Friend brought that important point to my notice, because it had escaped my attention. He made a telling point, and I hope that the Minister will make a detailed response to it.
It is a pity that the new Government dropped the sportsmark for primary schools. We had some debate about the impact of the proposals by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding PE as a core curriculum element in primary schools. To enable me to know the exact position when I attack the Government next week, perhaps the Minister will circulate us with a letter of what he considers to be the exact position on PE in primary schools.
Mr. Bercow:
A signed confession.
Mr. Syms:
Indeed. I believe that the Government have promoted things in that area as well as they could.
Playing fields were mentioned. It is right and proper that we do our best to maintain playing fields. However, as I served on a county council for several years, I know that, in many instances, playing fields are badly drained and can be used for only part of the year. I know of many schemes whereby part of a playing field has been sold, and the money spent on all-weather pitches, which are used much more intensively by children in the school. It is not necessarily accurate just to quote the number of playing fields that have gone. In many instances, local authorities have done their best to get the best value that they can and the best sporting facilities for their children.
I welcome the establishment of the United Kingdom Sports Institute, but I think that progress has been far too slow. It was originally intended to be a springboard for the Sydney Olympics, and I hope that the Government will speed up progress not only in Sheffield but on the regional centres. I hope also that team sports will retain an important place within the institute. Small and minor sports are important, but the process should pay due regard to team sports such as rugby, cricket and football.
It is important to promote sport in education. We are all aware of the recruitment problems facing the Army because of the general standard of physical education among school leavers. We must substantially improve sport provision in the early years. Sponsorship is very important. Last year, £320 million in sponsorship went into sport, so it is a vital area. As a member of the Health Committee, I think that it is sensible to move away from tobacco sponsorship, over time. However, we should remember that formula one--which is a sport--is a£1 billion industry which employs many people. The sport is very successful in the United Kingdom and we should not take it for granted. Many people throughout the world follow formula one and it makes a tremendous impact.
Horse racing was mentioned earlier in the debate, and it is also widely supported. I think that one can underestimate the value to the British economy of investment by foreign owners of horses. They create employment, and their investment is vital to this nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney(Mr. Woodward) referred to the crown jewels and listings. It is important that those sports that do not have the ability to sell to the highest bidder are compensated so that they may have seedcorn money for development.
We have a tremendous record in the disabled Olympics. I think it is a great pity that, in the past 12 months, the House voted to prevent disabled .22 calibre pistol shooters from continuing their sport. I remember clearly the Division on that issue.
I shall not speak for too much longer as many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. In his speech on 27 June 1997, the Minister for Sport said:
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on scoring the first goal in our game against Scotland. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood(Mr. Murphy) is not present today. I specifically asked him to join us for the sports debate so that I could once again talk him through my winning goal for England in the Members of Parliament game against Scotland.
Mr. Caplin:
Yes. That game proved that people of a more senior age can play a little football occasionally.
I have served on Committees with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and I thought that he was a reasonable man, but I am afraid that I found his speech today carping and unnecessary. It did not address the question of sport, but was more about whether Ministers will go to the world cup. This is a Government debate on sport as a whole, and I am afraid that his speech today rather let the side down.
Mr. Woodward:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so ungracious in his remarks--that is uncharacteristic behaviour. Does he genuinely believe that several hundred thousand British fans wanting to see football matches in France is of no significance when the Government are trying to promote a policy of access for all?
"the Government have no plans beyond those which they have announced already . . . to alter the funding of the existing good causes"--[Official Report, 1 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 99.].
Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well? Is this not in contrast to the firm pledge in "Labour's Sporting Nation" that sport would be a permanent good cause? He has reneged on that.
"My role is to serve as the long-stop, for those who are cricketers, or as the sweeper, for those interested in soccer. I see myself as perhaps the Ruud Gullit of the Government team".--[Official Report, 27 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 1125.]
I hope that, when there is a reshuffle and the Minister renegotiates his contract, he will not pitch too high as I would be delighted to see him on the Front Bench replying to sports debates for the foreseeable future--at least until the next general election.
12.42 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |