---

Sport

My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for introducing this debate, and for the many pertinent comments that he and other noble Lords have made—though it was rather a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, was not able to mention the Waterloo Cup. I must declare interests. I am chairman of the National Playing Fields Association and the Castle Rising Football Club, president of the Castle Rising Cricket Club and consultant to Wicksteed, a manufacturer of children's outdoor play equipment. Many noble Lords mentioned the benefits that sport brings to the nation, especially in health and education, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Verma among others. One benefit not commented on, which some noble Lords may not be aware of, is the benefit to the environment of playing fields. Grass is one of the largest producers of oxygen. Two and a half acres of turf produces more oxygen than two and a half acres of forest. One natural grass football pitch can provide enough oxygen for 120 people per annum. Two and a half acres of turf fixes between 6.5 and 8.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Given the benefits we all recognise from sport, it is a pity that there should be so many obstacles to its enjoyment, imposed by government both directly and indirectly. I hope that the Minister will listen today and take steps towards removing impediments to providing sport in the nation. Small clubs do not usually have large financial resources; they tend to exist from hand to mouth, with a large part of smaller clubs’ income coming from bar profits. The Licensing Act 2003 has affected them. It is no use Richard Caborn saying that fees can easily be absorbed. In many cases, especially of those struggling the hardest to make ends meet, the extra costs simply cannot be absorbed; for example, Headcorn Football Club’s licence fee went up from £25 per annum to £900 per annum. Could the Minister listen to his friend in another place, the former sports Minister Kate Hoey, and, "““initiate action to take sports clubs out of this net””?" One of the problems mentioned by my honourable friend Hugh Robertson in another place and by my noble friend Lord Glentoran this afternoon is the problem of rules. The endless succession of new regulations and guidelines has created, and continues to create, unnecessary barriers to the teaching and promotion of sport to the young. To give just one example, on 1 May a rule came into force that an adult may take only two children to a public swimming bath. Ministers tend to dismiss the negative effect of these regulations, but if the Minister agrees that it would be better to see more participation in sport, he should see what he can do to assist in the removal of at least some of these obstacles. While he is at it, could the Minister do something about those two insidious diseases, over-direction and political correctness? When comments are made about the problems and delays in distributing funds allocated for sport, the reason is always the same: compliance with an endless succession of criteria with no purpose or merit except to pander either to political correctness or to an absurd level of direction down to the smallest minutiae. On a subject that I have some knowledge of because of an interest I declared earlier, at the end of 2005 the Big Lottery Fund announced that £155 million would be allocated for children’s outdoor play. So far, £27 million has been given out, but £15 million—the major part of the money distributed—has been given to bureaucrats so that they can develop ““play strategy””. Local authorities, the principal appliers and users of these funds, know perfectly well what strategy will best suit their area without the need for outsiders to give them this sort of advice. Out of the £155 million, only £12 million has been used for its intended purpose, the provision of outdoor play. Why? Because the set of rules governing the application is so ludicrous that less than half of local authorities have bothered to apply. September, only two months away, is the final date for applications under this scheme. The Big Lottery Fund has refused to extend the date. Is it all a Machiavellian plot to deliberately not make the money available so that it can be diverted for other purposes, for example the Olympic Games? Or is it terminal incompetence on such a scale that the Big Lottery Fund cannot even give the money away? Whichever it is, can the Minister tell the House what will happen to the undistributed funds when the scheme is closed down? In 2002, £750 million was allocated to sport, but by 2004 only £8 million had been given. How much since then has actually been given, as opposed to allocated or assigned? It is difficult to ascertain, but if the rate is the same as for the first two years, not a lot will have been given out. I am not as familiar with the detail of this as I am with outdoor play, but it would appear that, again, it is the bureaucratic and regulatory barriers which are creating problems. The prevention of sport because of the dislike of there being a loser—as happens all too frequently—is absurd. Losing is a part of life, and it is misleading and bad for children not to learn about that. Indeed, it is arguable that the children who suffer in school sports are the winners. They learn about winning, and we all know that you do not always win in life. Having drawn the Minister’s attention to these problems, I am sure that he will do something about them. The only reason he might not be able to is because he will shortly receive a well deserved promotion, in which case he will, of course, be able to set his successor on the right path.