Planning and Infrastructure Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Moynihan
Main Page: Lord Moynihan (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Lord Moynihan's debates with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and his eloquent explanation when moving his amendment. My amendment seeks to reinforce the points he has made. It will not surprise him to learn that not only am I fully supportive but that sports policy is no longer principally about sporting success; it is about the important link between sport, health and well-being. That is why I have for a long time argued that ministerial responsibility for sport and recreation should be firmly embedded at the heart of the Department of Health, rather than mistakenly in a separate department responsible for broadcasting, tourism and the digital economy.
Sport England, courtesy of both parties—I am glad to see the Labour Benches so strongly represented at this hour—already has a statutory responsibility and a strategic duty to promote health improvement and reduce health inequalities, primarily through its role in increasing participation in sport and physical activity among underserved and less active groups. Sport England’s primary legal duty remit has rightly broadened in recent years to encompass improving health and well-being and addressing health inequalities as central objectives, in line with government policy. This includes supporting links between the sport sector, planning and health systems, and driving changes that address barriers to activity for disadvantaged groups in particular. That is why it is the right body to be the consultee, to ensure that with Amendment 147 placed firmly in the Bill, as I hope it will be, it can police its effectiveness.
The government strategy clarifies that the aims set out in this amendment require collaboration across the sectors, including councils, planning authorities, the NHS and other parties. Sport England has the rightly expected lead role and holds measurable targets in this area, and that is why I argue that it should be the statutory consultee. In conclusion, that is why this amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would strengthen it and provide oversight as to its effectiveness.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this late hour, having attached my name to Amendments 247 and 248, so ably and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I will make two brief points.
The first point is about the proposed duty to promote health improvement. The UK has a terrible state of public health. We are doing much worse than many other countries that we consider comparable, and that has huge human, social and economic effects. The social determinants of health—so many aspects covered by the Bill—are the major factor in why that is the case. Unless we take action, it will only get worse.
My second point is about the second chief element of the proposed new clause: the Secretary of State’s duty to “reduce health inequalities”. The King’s Fund defines health inequalities as
“avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different groups”.
In assessing this issue, it points to life expectancy, which varies across England by almost a decade, and healthy life expectancy, which varies between the poorest and the richest areas by 18 years.
My question to the Minister and the crowded Benches opposite, is: how can a Labour Government or Labour Peers oppose this amendment?
My Lords, I believe it falls to me to briefly respond. My intention is not to press my amendment.