[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2024-26, Game On: Community and school sport, HC 593, and the Government response, HC 462, Session 2026-27.]
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2024-26, Game On: Community and school sport, HC 593, and the Government response, HC 462, Session 2026-27.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2027, for expenditure by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £3,862,598,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1855 of Session 2024-26,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £618,275,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £3,572,620,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Gen Kitchen.)
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £3,572,620,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Gen Kitchen.)
The debate will be opened by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and there will be an immediate three-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions. I call Dame Caroline Dinenage.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee. I am conscious of time, so I will focus my remarks on the Select Committee’s “Game On” report, which looked at community and school sport, and the Government response published last week.
The evidence was unequivocal: an active nation underpins everything else—our health, our prosperity, our social cohesion. It is not a peripheral issue, but a strategic priority, yet it has too often been treated by Governments as a discretionary choice. We are at a critical juncture as the UK continues to invest significantly less in sport and physical activity than many of our European neighbours, despite the proven economic and social returns. Our Committee therefore called for a decisive generational shift, with a cross-Government movement for health strategy that recognises that physical activity is not simply a sport, but a central pillar of policy across health, education, planning and economic growth.
The Government response acknowledged much of this analysis, but when we look more closely, we recognise a theme that has gripped this Government from day one: plenty of words, but no action to back them up, or as some might say, “all mouth and no trousers”. Nowhere is that clearer than on funding. We recommended increasing the share of Government expenditure on sport and recreation over time, in recognition of the very clear evidence that investment in activity delivers long-term savings, reduces illness, supports people into work, prevents chronic conditions and strengthens local economies.
Young people are our future. They are the future politicians, technicians, writers, sportspeople, physiotherapists or whatever they want to be. The laws, policies and funding that we put forward must help in building their future. We must invest in them, inspire them, and give them the tools and skills for their future, so that they have the confidence and resilience to deal with whatever life throws at them. Decent access to youth services and sporting activities is an integral part of that.
Almost 1 million of our young people are not in education or employment. Youth unemployment is also strongly linked to social and economic inequality. I have spoken many times about why I set up the Youth Violence Commission. Soon after I was first elected in 2015, five of my young constituents were murdered in quick succession. The commission gathered evidence from academics, youth workers, educators and, most importantly, young people themselves. It showed how many different factors influence a young person’s life. Some were more immediately obvious, such as their schooling, health, housing situation and relationship with their family, but our work also really brought home the power of sport, youth services and the arts to inspire and motivate our young people, as well as offering them a safe place to go. I am not talking just about the activities themselves, but about the interventions that happen alongside them.
I recently read Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”, which is a powerful account of life in a concentration camp. There is a poignant part of that book where victims and concentration camp prisoners, talking to each other at the end of the day when they could barely keep their eyes open, go and witness a sunset because its beauty brings out something in them that would keep them going for the next day. The reason I talk about that is that it demonstrates the importance of art, in any shape or form. It can help our young people and those who are looking to improve their ill health.
Creative art for young people is routinely treated as discretionary spending: nice if there is money left over, but expendable the moment that there is not. I pay homage to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who has done a lot of work on this subject. He recently held a roundtable where he showed that ill health currently costs the UK economy £212 billion a year, with 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. However, arts and health interventions are estimated to return up to £8.56 in social value for every £1 spent.
We also know that poor mental health costs the economy an estimated £300 billion annually. Conversely, cultural engagement among 18 to 30-year-olds shows an average wellbeing benefit of £854 per person. Evidence on social prescribing tells the same story in cash terms; reductions in GP and A&E attendance and hospital admissions could represent around a £4 saving on every £1 spent on a link worker’s salary. The 2023 “Creative Health Review” found that the problem is not a lack of evidence, but fragmented funding.
As we have this debate about budgets and the figures being spent on sport, one key question keeps leaping out. As has been said by colleagues, we know that sport and physical activity is one of the things that can best maintain good health and prevent ill health. However, when we look at the numbers—hundreds of millions spent on sport, and hundreds of billions on the costs of ill health and welfare—we realise that we are stuck in a cycle of spending billions on ill health and worklessness and hardly anything to prevent it.
The points set out in the “Game On” report and by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), are well made, so I will leap past the questions on the quantum of spend and instead ask about the barriers that prevent us from doing what we know we should.
First, I have a question for the Treasury. We seem to be stuck in our approach and attitude towards prevention spending. It is time to ask some fundamental questions about how we address that, looking at the mechanisms that the Office for Budget Responsibility uses to measure spend and how it scores those initiatives, and how we think about prevention within the fiscal rules.
Fragmentation has been mentioned. We spend £3.8 billion across Government on sport and physical activity, but that is across the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, local government and so on. Surely we need to bring this together and co-ordinate it through one single, accountable body. The NHS is currently unable to pay for social prescribing and physical activity courses in the same way that it pays for pills. Surely we need to have parity between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions.
4:46 pm
20 of 53 shown
Following publication of the Committee’s report, the Government announced over £1 billion for school sport. It looked like a statement of the kind of ambition we would like to see across the sector, and we nearly patted ourselves on the back for influencing this remarkable investment. However, given a closer look, this glossy announcement is no gift at all. It is a cynical cut disguised as new funding. Yesterday, Schools Week published an article with the finding that 65% of schools in the north-east are expecting to make cuts to their coaching staff as a result. One reason for this cut is the reduction in the contribution from the Department of Health and Social Care and the replacement of the PE and sport premium with money that must now go to secondary schools as well as primary schools. I have a feeling that the Minister will attempt to say that schools are receiving more money for PE and sport when she responds to this debate, but that is simply not the case. It is smoke and mirrors.
We were pleased with the £400 million of grassroots funding, which we called for in our report, but we need a concerted effort to ensure that the funding achieves what it sets out to do. We also called for an audit of sport and physical activity facilities to make sure we are not losing them. This danger is real, especially as the Government have still not ruled out removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. Are the Government tracking the number of sports pitches and facilities, or do they have any plans to do so?
Another pillar of our recommendations was clarity—clarity of leadership, accountability and deliverability—because without a coherent national plan, even significant investment risks being fragmented and under-realised. That is why we called for a cross-Government strategy, backed by clear objectives, defined responsibilities and mechanisms to measure progress. The Government have told us that a national plan for physical activity is in development, but there is no firm deadline, no detailed governance model and no clear indication of how the Department will be held accountable—all words, no action. On issue after issue, the Government have agreed in principle to a number of our recommendations, but have declined to act decisively, as with the recommendation of a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sporting and leisure facilities and the recommendation on action to remove unnecessary “No ball games” signs. There are warm words, but zero grip.
In schools, where the case for action is perhaps clearest of all, we see the same pattern: the Government accept that provision is inconsistent and acknowledge the importance of high-quality PE and regular activity, but when presented with the opportunity to set out clear national expectations, they step back. There is no requirement for children to achieve 60 minutes of activity every day, only encouragement; there is no firm mandate guaranteeing two hours of PE each week, only an expectation that schools might protect time; and physical education itself will remain outside the core curriculum subjects, despite its central importance to children’s development. A truly transformative approach would embed movement throughout the school, throughout the curriculum, throughout the environment and throughout our culture, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to live active lives, because active children become active adults.
Outside school, the Secretary of State has made her national youth strategy the poster child of her tenure. She came to Parliament to tell us she was giving young people
“somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 971.]
The strategy is backed by £500 million, which again sounds like a hugely significant investment to me, but when we look at the detail, we see it is not the investment we think. It is the amalgamation of the scrapped youth investment fund and the scrapped National Citizen Service. Less money is going into the system. Although the National Citizen Service no doubt had its flaws, it was the most successful youth programme of the past few decades—over 1 million young people took part.
Funding streams used to be clear, but now there is a convoluted pick and mix of over nine different programmes. It is more difficult for civil society to navigate a fragmented selection of funding pots. Meanwhile, the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service meant that some of the incredibly skilled and dedicated youth workers, on whom we rely and on whom the Government will rely when they finally decide what they are going to do for young people, have left the workforce. How many have left the sector due to delays and uncertainty in the delivery of the national youth strategy? Does the Minister know? Perhaps she can tell me.
Volunteering is an essential foundation of community sport. The Government recognise its importance, but they once again stop short of setting out a comprehensive national policy to support, incentivise and sustain the workforce—there is nothing there. The valued volunteer workforce is needed more than ever before, but it is under incredible pressure. People are dropping out due to the time priorities of coping with cost of living demands.
There is one further example that speaks volumes about the Government’s approach: the question of women’s football broadcasting. The Select Committee recommended an intervention to explore whether the 3 pm Saturday blackout could be adapted to support the women’s game. It would give a consistent time for showcasing the women’s game and inspire girls to get active. The Government’s response points to the technical complexities of UEFA article 48 and argues that any change would risk opening up the slot more widely, thereby undermining its current purpose—the response is, “It’s all too difficult. We just can’t be bothered.” Where is the ambition to work proactively with UEFA and the Football Association to pursue a targeted exemption for women’s football? While the 3 pm blackout continues, women’s football is shackled and with it the opportunity for more women and girls to see themselves participating in sport.
An active population is a healthier, more productive and more connected population. Increasing participation in sport and physical activity is one of the most powerful and cost-effective levers of Government. It delivers returns across multiple policy areas simultaneously, easing pressure on public services and improving quality of life. The question is not whether the Government recognise those investments—they plainly do. The question is whether they are prepared to act with any urgency or with the ambition that the evidence demands. Without ambition, we will continue to fall short of what is possible.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has set out a road map. It is quite easy for the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department to follow it. What we need now is for the Government not simply to endorse this sense of direction, but to actually match their words with decisive action.
To give a brief example, there is a boxing club in my constituency called Double Jab. While young people might initially go there to learn how to train and box, they are also offered mentorship and guidance on how to navigate life’s challenges. Strong mentors and trusted adults can deliver a change in attitude and get someone on the path towards a better future. Access to sport, youth activities and culture, improves a whole variety of outcomes. However, Government must go further with their ambitions. Culture, media and sport are not just a “nice to have” to be tagged on to other stuff. Instead, they must be at the heart of everything.
We need a public health approach, with all of Government working together on a cross-departmental strategy, led from DCMS and focused on the right outcomes for our young people. If we can get that right—if we can meet our ambition for every single young person—I am sure that colleagues from the Treasury will be delighted to know that it has the potential to result in significant savings down the line.
I will quickly pay homage to some organisations in my city that are utilising arts to improve the mental health of young people and the recovery of those who are unwell. Since October last year, the Shine programme, launched by the Curve theatre in partnership with the Randal Foundation, has brought drama-based sessions into five Leicester city-centre schools, reaching 250 teenagers in some of our most disadvantaged communities. The early findings from Dr Lyndsey Bakewell at De Montfort University are striking: every student involved has reported doing something they have never done before, and teachers have reported an increase in student resilience across the board. One participating pupil described feeling comfortable speaking in front of others—something that they had always found difficult. That is what early intervention looks like.
There is also Talent 25, which is De Montfort University’s extraordinary 25-year longitudinal study, led by Professor Bertha and funded by the Arts Council. It is following 440 children from across Leicester, from birth into adulthood, tracking the effects of regular access to arts and creativity on a child’s development. The early findings are positive among the children now starting school, with researchers reporting no unauthorised absences and parents describing real, lasting changes in their own lives, reduced isolation—
Hon. Members have also mentioned schools. Physical education plays a crucial role in schools—the White Paper is very clear about that. Yet within the Ofsted measures, do we actually properly judge schools on the quality and quantity of their physical education? We do not. It is a huge opportunity that we are missing out on. Sport and physical activity can clearly play a massive role in the prevention of ill health. We know that that can save a lot of money, not just from the health budget but from welfare as a whole. We know that that is an imperative, and yet we are not grasping the opportunity.
We need to recognise there are systematic, structural barriers that too often put prevention into the “too hard to do” pile, as has been said. We cannot continue to accept that. We must recognise the absolute imperative of reducing demand on health and welfare budgets through effective prevention. The only way we can do that is by committing to investment to deliver sport, physical activity and other prevention measures at true scale, while ensuring that we break down the very barriers that stop us delivering that across Government.