Westminster Hall Sitting of 11 April 2000

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

National Lottery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Clelland]
10 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I welcome the opportunity to have this topical debate, because we will know the new lottery operators in a couple of months'time. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will place both offers in the Library, so that we may judge them. I would like to thank David Price for his research, and Joe Hicks and Bryn Morgan of the Library for their assistance. I strongly commend their research paper, "The National Lottery", to all hon. Members.
It is not my intention to dwell on the respective merits of the two applicants—the holders, Camelot, and the challengers, the People's Lottery—although I will raise some concerns about Microsoft's involvement with the People's Lottery in due course. This is a debate about the future of the lottery, and I will raise the following issues: additionality; revenue-neutral definitions; the development of a national structure for the delivery of lottery terminals; the creation of a new national cause and the creation of a local community cause. I will also speak about sport—a favourite subject of mine.
Since the lottery came into being, there has been an ongoing discussion about additionality versus the arm's-length principle. I now believe that a new lottery Act should dispense with additionality. I will review some aspects of the additionality argument over the past four or five years. In the past two years, the new opportunities fund has brought additionality into question. Some people say that the fund breaches both the principle of additionality and the arm's-length principle.
Central to the debate is the ambiguity about what constitutes core expenditure and what is the Government's responsibility. The funding of cancer care, the provision of after-school facilities and information technology training are particular concerns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argued that the new opportunities fund was in line with the principle of additionality. He said:
the money that is going to child care, out-of-hours school activities, information technology training for teachers and healthy living centres is entirely additional to any existing Exchequer expenditure—[Official Report, 19 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 679.]
In Committee on the National Lottery Bill, Lord Skidelsky, speaking for the Opposition, stated that
on-going public services should not depend on variable, voluntary contributions…Lottery money should not be diverted to pay for what is essential at the expense of what is merely desirable. The National Lottery should not come to be seen as a sort of painless extra tax for every spending programme the Government choose—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 36.]
In response, Lord McIntosh, in trying to define the principle of additionality, said:
2WH
Important as the principle of additionality is, I am afraid that there is no practical way in which it can be enshrined in legislation—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 43.]
That is one of the factors at the core of my argument.
Many people have raised concerns about additionality, and I will deal with one or two of them. Tessa Baring, member of the National Lottery Charities Board's UK committee, argued in Lottery Monitor magazine that many people in the voluntary sector feel dismayed by the creation of the new opportunities fund, which they consider to be breaching the principles of arm's length and additionality. She says:
not only can they actually fund Local Authorities, but their policy directions from Government dictate their programmes, some of which are seen to cover areas of Government responsibility like teacher-training and cancer treatment.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation paper in November 1998 outlining three initiatives. One initiative concerned cancer care and focused on four areas: prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment, and palliative care. The proposed initiative could encompass the provision of equipment, support services, respite care, joint palliative care posts and training, and would be delivered by the voluntary sector and the national health service in partnership. The projects funded by that initiative would be in addition to those currently planned by the Government. In reality, this is a catch-up exercise.
In March 1999, the Government published a summary of the responses, which showed great concerns about breach of the additionality principle. The Secretary of State resisted the key suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) in Committee that the cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care programme was a matter of core expenditure. Such issues are at the root of my concern.
This year, it was announced that the new opportunities fund would partner the Department for Education and Employment to fund new information and communication technology centres in such diverse places as football clubs, schools and community buildings. Government money will pay the capital costs of setting up the centres, and the fund will pay for training, outreach, marketing and software. Some consider such an example of the NOF teaming up directly with the Government, wedding together lottery and Treasury money to fund projects, to be inconsistent with additionality, as the term was originally understood.
When we discuss the future of the lottery, we should drop additionality from the political agenda. The Government should be allowed to bid for lottery money. Of course, if the requirement for additionality ended, the Treasury might try to hold on to all the receipts. I doubt whether that would be a good idea. Rather than being allowed free access, the Government should be able to apply for moneys within the current regulations. Perhaps we could consider a maximum percentage that they could receive.
I think that additionality ought to go, at least partly because of research that I have read on how lottery money is spent in other countries. Let me give a few examples. In Pennsylvania, 40 per cent. is used to help elderly citizens. The Wisconsin state lottery helps to fund property tax relief. The Delaware lottery goes towards funding a full range of state services. In Nebraska,

3WH
49.5 per cent. goes to the education innovation fund, 49.5 per cent. goes to the environmental trust fund, and 1 per cent. helps compulsive gamblers.
Florida's 1987 legislature ensured that 38 per cent. of state lottery proceeds went towards education, to support schools, community colleges, state universities, pre-school programmes and so on. In New York state, 38 per cent. funds school aid. In California, 34 per cent. goes towards special schools, higher education and kindergartens. That describes the situation only in the United States. State hospitals in New South Wales receive critical funding from the lottery. In Western Australia, money goes to public hospitals and public health services. Funds in British Columbia are earmarked for urgent health care priorities. The end of additionality would not mean huge changes; people would like the results.
The term "revenue-neutral" has confused me, although I have tried hard to find a definition of it. Perhaps it is an oxymoron. The Library's national lottery paper says:
Lottery Duty has been set at 12 per cent. Lottery Duty is intended to be revenue-neutral, making up for lost VAT on other retail sales. If spending is diverted to lottery tickets from products attracting high levels of duty (alcohol, tobacco etc.) then the Exchequer loses out. Conversely if spending is diverted from low-taxed items (confectionery, newspapers) or from planned savings, the Exchequer gains. As ticket sales have been higher than forecast, so has the amount raised from Lottery Duty.
I have tried to find out the amount of duty paid. For 1994–95, the figure was £143 million; for 1995–96, £626 million; for 1996–97, £567 million; for 1997–98, £662 million; and for 1998–99, £625 million. I have also tried to work out what those figures mean, and sought advice from consultants and librarians who were struggling, like me, to understand the situation better. I understand that the Government have taken tax not of 12 per cent. but—I take the figures from page 9 of the lottery paper—of 14.2 per cent., 13 per cent., 12.9 per cent., 12.9 per cent. and 12.8 per cent. in the past five years.
At a crude estimate, an extra £195 million has gone to the Treasury.
Perhaps the National Audit Office could define what revenue-neutral means with respect to lottery duties so that we can ensure that more money is put into causes. For instance, NESTA—the national endowment for science, technology and the arts—has a small trust at £15 million a year, and giving that cause another £195 million would be of great help to those fields. My gut feeling is that the figure is much higher than £195 million, and I would like a definition of the formula to be agreed so that ordinary mortals such as myself can understand and make a judgment about the matter. I think that that is probably enough about oxymorons.
There are currently 24,300 lottery terminals, but we should have a terminal in every community across the United Kingdom. We need to rethink the way in which the lottery is delivered, and we must hope that even Camelot, given its partnership with the Post Office, has sussed that out. As the Barclays bank debacle and the various debates in the House and in our communities have shown, post offices are the essential service wherever we live. Margaret Burke runs my local post office in
4WH
Rodmersham Green; she also runs a store, helps the village in many ways in addition to providing a service, and rarely has a day off. She is what I would call the salt of the earth and a pillar of the community. She is concerned, however, about the mooted changes to the post offices as we progress towards modernising the service. If we gave her a terminal, it could become the e-mail centre for the village, and the post office could combine with the local county primary school to be a little hub.
The lottery could be the beginning of the first national trunk road for digital services, if we approached it with a bit of imagination; and if we have not included that proposal in the tender document, we should retender. The lottery could transform our rural areas so that they become part of the smart economy, and I urge the Secretary of State to make plans to do that. If lottery terminals were used as hubs and sub-hubs for digital services as well as for the lottery, our economy would be transformed. I should add the cautious note that if that system was developed, Microsoft, a partner in the People's Lottery bid, should not be given an inbuilt advantage in providing the software packages.
I accidentally found the constituency spends of one or two hon. Members who are present. In Rossendale and Darwen, the spend on lottery tickets so far has been £28.5 million, yet that constituency has won only £2.5 million in awards. I notice that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is here; his constituents have spent £33.5 million on tickets, but his constituency has won only £4.7 million. In my constituency, we have spent £43.6 million, which is more than those constituencies have spent, but we have received only £1.3 million in return. People in two of my communities—one on the island and one close to Sittingbourne—may drop their cereal bowls when they hear of the new awards early on Thursday morning. Those three constituencies are not untypical, and the system is plainly unfair. I would urge the Minister to introduce a community fund whereby 20 per cent. of local receipts automatically goes back to the community.
If it is accepted that additionality has gone by the board, could we add infrastructure to the causes? Wherever I look, the infrastructure in our communities is lacking. In the community I take as my example, more than 1,850 houses are under construction, but when planning is given for a school building, it is never built, and instead we push in an extra classroom here and there. That is bad enough—but there is also the matter of the village field. For two years, the owners of the properties cater for that field, and then it is given over to the local authority and it very quickly becomes hard rock and impossible to play on. Within that planning infrastructure, there is no doctor's surgery and none is planned. We must examine our communities' infrastructure to see whether we can add something at a local level that might make a real difference.
At present, the United Kingdom sports cabinet comprises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, Tom Middlehurst on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It wants to reduce Sport England's proportion of the lottery and redistribute it to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

5WH
I checked the figures—courtesy of the Central Council of Physical Recreation—and currently the Exchequer's spend on sport in our four countries is £2.25 per head in Wales, £1.91 per head in Scotland, £1.66 per head in Northern Ireland and a mere 67p per head in England. Further changes to the current Sport England budget would severely embarrass the population of England. Sport has already lost because of the sixth cause of the new opportunities fund and if more funds are taken, England will lose again. I hope that my hon. Friend can dispel such rumours.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think again about additionality in a new lottery Act. It should be removed once and for all. Will she consider the revenue-neutral system and a definition of such from the National Audit Office, in case the Treasury has taken more money than it should? Lottery terminals are the key to my argument. If they could be placed in each community throughout the country, a national e-mail system could be in place for everyone, including the digitally disadvantaged. Finally, will my hon. Friend consider infrastructure and the community cause and end the uncertainty about Sport England? I do not ask for much.
10.16 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the debate, which he introduced in a considered way. It is timely and useful. As someone who was on the Back Benches when the National Lottery etc. Bill was introduced and who also served on the Standing Committee that considered it, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view on additionality. At the time, I was working with the National Campaign for the Arts and tabling amendments to secure the principle of additionality. The hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to enshrine that in legislation. Well, with the support of the Government, we made a determined effort to do that with separate lines of accounting and clear statements that lottery money was to be additional to usual Government spending.
Members of the Labour party were especially vociferous in wishing the lottery money to be over and above the on-going Exchequer funding for Government responsibilities. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that additionality should be kicked off the political agenda. I do not suppose that that view is shared by his friends in the sporting world or in charities, the arts or heritage activities. The lottery was set up to fund those areas of life that would always be at the back of the Exchequer queue at the time of funding rounds. It would be difficult for activities such as the arts, sports and heritage to cut a convincing argument if they were in competition with health, education and other important social services.
The lottery was set up to fund those activities that would not otherwise have received funding. It has been phenomenally successful in bringing new money and new life to a range of activities that were previously short of funds. Recognition of that fact was missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The hon. Gentleman cited the cases of Nebraska, Delaware and Florida. What is the tax rate in those places? I suspect that it is much lower than it is here. The situation as regards the provision of public services is,
6WH
therefore, not the same. If the tax rate is much lower, the temptation to dig into the lottery to fund activities that would normally be considered the staple diet of Exchequer funding will be that much stronger.
I also suspect that if all the money that goes into the sport lottery fund—I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on sport—were diverted to the national health service, it would be consumed in a matter of hours. It would make precious little difference to the NHS, but an immense difference to sport, which is a prime beneficiary of the national lottery.
I am not saying that the lottery is perfect; it is not, and there have been problems. There have been high-profile cases of lottery beneficiaries running into financial difficulties. There are the revenue requirements that have been stoked up by the substantial capital grants that have been awarded in some cases. I need not go into examples, although one well-known case that probably merits a mention is down the river at Greenwich. However, there are others. It is important that the lottery has regard to the revenue implications of capital grants.
There are continuing complaints about the bureaucracy and complexity of the application process. The Government have moved to simplify the situation a bit, but there is a long way to go before the procedure is made as user-friendly as we would like. It is a pity to see people in local communities who want to bid for lottery grants spending large sums on accountants and consultants. They do not like doing that, especially if their bids are unsuccessful.
The chances of making an unsuccessful bid have, of course, increased since the establishment of the new opportunities fund. However much we all support extra funding for health care, education and environmental projects, I must question whether the fund is the right way to provide that money. There is no escaping the fact that there have been winners and losers as a result of the establishment of the fund. The losers are the original good causes: charities, sport, the arts and heritage. They have noticed that, from the end of the year, when the Millennium Commission winds up, one third of lottery money will go to support projects that many people believe should be the responsibility of core Government funding.
Concerns have arisen recently as a result of the National Audit Office inquiry into the handling of some National Lottery Charities Board projects. There is a heavy responsibility on those who discharge lottery money to ensure that they do so in a clear, accountable and responsible way. I have no doubt that the board will have read the NAO report with great care and will take note of its recommendations.
It would be wrong to end without mentioning the campaign being waged for the lottery promotion company, with which the Minister will be familiar. That poses the issue of the alleged £3.7 billion in the national lottery distribution fund that is idle at any one time. It would be helpful if the Minister would restate the Government's position on that matter. As far as I can determine, the majority of funds are earmarked for existing projects, and therefore committed. Every week, a substantial cash flow enters the lottery system, and the amount sitting in the distribution fund has grown over time.

7WH
Once again, I emphasise that the national lottery has been an enormous success. Although the big projects such as the dome and the earth centre have grabbed the headlines, the lottery has had its greatest impact on society through thousands of small grants up and down the country, which have responded to local needs.
Another criticism of the Government would be their tendency to centralise the lottery and adopt a top-down approach, whereas the original vision of the Conservative Government was for a community-based approach, under which local communities proposed ideas and put in bids for lottery cash. I am concerned about the Government's dirigiste approach under which they—rather than local communities—decide where the money goes.
Anything helping to establish and support a cause as good as the Orpheus centre in my constituency—an arts centre set up by Richard Stilgoe, which is proving immensely beneficial to young people with disabilities and is becoming a national resource, revitalising and enlivening the arts in a therapeutic contextߞcan be no bad thing. Whoever wins the bid to run the lottery later this year, the key requirement is that the lottery continues to act as a power for good in our society.
10.27 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this timely debate. The lottery is now more than five years old and has had a tremendous impact on our national life. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) described it as an enormous success and I agree. For the first time, someone I know well won £500,000 on the lottery recently, and it has transformed his family's life. Our lottery has been one of the most successful in the world, with £7.4 billion already awarded to nearly 57,000 projects across the UK.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for East Surrey believes that we have been too dirigiste in our approach. I can assure him that that is not our intention. The Government set the framework for regulation of the lottery and distribution of the net proceeds, but we do not choose the operator or distribute lottery funds ourselves. Irrespective of whether there is a change of operator, we have done much to ensure that lottery funding is more effective, equitable and accessible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has a deep interest in the future of the lottery and has had some interesting ideas. I shall deal with each of them in turn, and with wider concerns. He referred to the new opportunities fund and said that the principle of additionality should be dropped and the Government should be allowed to bid for lottery money. He gave examples of what money is spent on around the world through other lotteries, and of what people would like money to be spent on. He is right. If we went into the street, stopped the first person that we saw and asked him what lottery funding should be spent on, I bet that he would say health and education first.
We remain committed to the principle that lottery money should add to, not substitute for, Government expenditure. We do not believe that the Government
8WH
should reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery, or use lottery funds to substitute for obligations into which they have entered. The lottery will add value, allowing for projects that would otherwise not be possible. It funds specific time-limited projects. As with all lottery funding, the new opportunities fund supports only initiatives additional to those funded from taxation. It supports activities in health, education and environment beyond those funded by the taxpayer, in the same way as it does for arts, heritage and sport.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the projects of the new opportunities fund prove workable, sensible and desirable and take root, will the Government be willing to see them funded from taxation in future?
Janet Anderson: That is interesting, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and it may be helpful if I speak about the new opportunities fund.
We have made changes to lottery distribution. Lottery money is public money, freely given. The National Lottery Act 1998 reflects the public's view that lottery money should support what they feel is important. Before it, lottery proceeds were divided between arts, charities, heritage, the millennium and sport. The 1998 Act created a sixth good cause, the new opportunities fund, which has made great progress in channelling money to important and popular health, education and environmental initiatives.
From early next year—the date depends on the rate at which lottery money flows in—we expect the fund to receive one third of lottery proceeds, as it will receive the share formerly paid to the Millennium Commission.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend the Minister cheer on a bid led by Wealdstone football club—it is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), but many of its supporters live in mine—to regenerate the Prince Edward playing fields in the Stanmore area? The bid would facilitate a stadium with a capacity of 3,000, 14 artificial football pitches, and a range of other sporting facilities.
Janet Anderson: I note what my hon. Friend says. He knows that decisions on lottery applications are not for me, and I am sure that he and his neighbouring Members of Parliament are able to speak for themselves and for the project, which sounds worthy of serious consideration.
The other good causes will continue to receive their one-sixth share beyond 2001. Careful consideration is given to the views of the public in the allocation of money from the fund. There has been, and will continue to be, consultation on possible new initiatives. The Government remain committed to the principle of additionality, and lottery funds must be used to enhance current core spending, not replace it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey also asked whether national lottery duty was revenue-neutral, and mentioned oxymorons, an

9WH
interesting point which he first mentioned yesterday. He will know that the intention was always that the duty would be designed to be revenue-neutral, on the basis that it would replace revenue lost from other sources as a result of displaced expenditure. In other words, if people spend money on the lottery, they may be less likely to spend it on other things, and we did not want the Exchequer to suffer as a result. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what should be done with revenue accrued to the Exchequer. I shall examine that point and write to him, and I thank him for making it.
My hon. Friend also mentioned post offices, and referred to a lady who runs a local post office in his constituency, Margaret Burke, whom he described as the salt of the earth. I represent a relatively rural constituency that contains many similar post offices, and my hon. Friend is right—they are an invaluable resource for local communities. Making the right decisions on this matter could mean the salvation of our rural post offices, because they can do so much.
Retail selection and where terminals are located is a matter not for the Government but for Camelot, under the terms of the licence granted by the former Director General of the National Lottery. Camelot's licence requires a minimum of 35,100 lottery terminals nationally, including both on-line and Instants only. Camelot is also required to employ clear minimum criteria for selection and deselection. Beyond that, responsibility for selecting and deselecting retail outlets lies with Camelot. As in the case of the Post Office, that may involve agents. I am not clear whether the Post Office imposes any additional or different conditions on its outlets, but I shall examine the matter and write to my hon. Friend. I agree that if we make the right decisions about the lottery and its role in the future of local post offices, that could transform our rural areas.
My hon. Friend also referred to disparities between spending and awards in some constituencies, referring to his, mine and that of the hon. Member for East Surrey. It was always intended that lottery funding should be distributed according to need. Nevertheless, anxieties have been expressed that some areas have not benefited as much as we would have liked from lottery funding. As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently commissioned some research into what had happened to former coalfield communities, because many hon. Members representing such areas felt that their communities had not been treated as favourably as they should have been. We hope to publish the results of that research shortly. I hope that that shows that we are always willing to reconsider such matters. My hon. Friend's idea of a community fund is good. The Government will be consulting on possible new initiatives in due course, and I invite him to submit that idea to us formally.
I note what my hon. Friend said about sport funding. I should point out that I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who has a long-standing engagement in Lancaster this morning, and who is responsible for the lottery. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am not as knowledgeable on this matter as they expected. A direct comparison of expenditure on sport by country is difficult, as sport is structured differently from country to country. Comparisons of expenditure per capita are not necessarily meaningful.
10WH
As we start to plan for the next comprehensive spending review, it will be important for all sectors of sport to speak with one voice. Sport must be effective in articulating its needs, make the case for additional Exchequer funding in the future, and focus on how it can address the Government's priorities and objectives and provide added value. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently published the Government's sport strategy, which I hope will make clear the challenge faced by sport and recreation in this country, with Government support, and the important part that they play in the education and health of the nation.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: A key part of that strategy was the requirement for an audit of sporting facilities. Will my hon. Friend urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport to encourage Sport England to take special note of the lack of modern athletics facilities, modern tennis facilities or access to artificial turf pitches for football in my constituency?
Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. An audit is long overdue, and I am pleased that it was part of the strategy. Funding was recently secured for two small all-weather pitches in my constituency, which has made a huge difference to the local community by providing kids with somewhere to play. We must press ahead with the audit; I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will persuade Sport England to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to the wider availability of lottery terminals, which relates to the point that he made about post offices. As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, he will be anxious, as the Government are, that the digital revolution should not result in a society of information-rich and information-poor. That is one of the biggest challenges facing the Government, which I hope will be dealt with by the forthcoming White Paper.
On the new licence, the National Lottery Commission is responsible for ensuring that the lottery is run with due propriety and that the interests of players are protected. It is also responsible for choosing the next licence holder. The current operator, Camelot, was awarded a seven-year licence in 1994, which runs out in September 2001. The commission received two bids for the next licence, from Camelot and from the People's Lottery. Provided that the commission judges that bidders will protect players'interests and run the lottery properly, the licence will be awarded to the bidder most likely to raise the most money for the good causes. Possible additional contributions to the good causes from profits will be taken into account. The name of the preferred bidder will be announced by the end of June. I noted my hon. Friend's comments about one participant in one of those bids. However, we are pleased that there are two strong bidders, as healthy competition is in the interests of both players and the good causes.
The commission took measures to ensure a level playing field for those applying. Bidders are required to install new terminals from day one of the new licence. Yesterday, my hon. Friend and I had an interesting discussion about what might happen to the old

11WH
terminals. Camelot has been asked to make available information on its retail outlets to other bidders, and has agreed to co-operate with the new operator if there is a handover.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What happened to the Government's commitment to introduce a not-for-profit lottery operator?
Janet Anderson: That has always been the Government's intention; if the hon. Gentleman will be patient, his question will be answered. He asked about the application and decision process.
Mr. Ainsworth: Is it still the Government's intention to introduce a not-for-profit lottery operator?
Janet Anderson: The Government always have been, and still are, committed to a not-for-profit lottery. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn to the application and decision process. Application processes can be discouragingly long and complicated for some applicants, especially small, voluntary organisations without access to professional, legal and business advice. The introduction of simpler application procedures is another way of ensuring an equitable spread of lottery money.
Our wish for the people's lottery was for changes by distributors to make application processes user-friendly. That was followed by changes in the National Lottery Act 1998, which included establishing the principle of cross-distributor working to make the application process more accessible. However, distributors agree that there is still more to be done; they are working with my Department to identify scope in application processes for further improvement and simplification. I hope soon to be able to report progress in that respect.
Our quality, efficiency and standards team—QUEST—is considering how the cost of making applications can be contained without compromising the demands of proper accountability in decisions on how to spend public money. QUEST will soon publish phase 1 of its report, which considers applications for grants up to £100,000.
The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned the national lottery distribution fund, which was the subject of recent press reports. To consider its balance in isolation makes no sense; it is rather like looking at one's bank balance without taking into account the cheques that have been written. Of the £3.5 billion currently in the fund, 94 per cent.—all but £200 million—has already been committed by distributing bodies; in other words, there has either been a firm agreement or an agreement in principle that the money will be handed over to a project. For example, my constituency was lucky enough to be allocated £2.7 million from the heritage lottery fund for the Ilex Mill project. The money has not yet been handed over because planning for the project has not been completed. However, it has been committed. The money will, rightly, be paid only if work is completed; it obviously cannot be spent twice.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am an enthusiastic supporter of a London bid for the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016,
12WH
whether it is through the NLDF, Sport England or another form of lottery funding. I ask my hon. Friend not to rule out the possibility of lottery funding being used to support such a bid.
Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend knows that the Government want lottery funding to be spent in the best way possible to enhance the quality of life of all our communities. He can take it from me that that will continue to be our policy.
While money remains in the NLDF, it earns tax-free interest, which goes to the good causes and not to Government. So far, that has produced an extra £800 million for the good causes; we receive regular details from distributing bodies on their future commitments. We are well aware of the true picture.
Distributing bodies expect to commit more than £2 billion in the next 12 months and the cash balance in the NLDF should fall in the medium term as more grant payments are made. I hope that the current and planned changes to the lottery, when taken together, will help to ensure at least four things. More money will be spent on people and activities, shifting the focus away from bricks and buildings. It will be easier for smaller and less wealthy organisations to benefit. Distributors will continue to contribute to reducing social and economic deprivation. All regions of the country, whether urban or rural, will have equal and easy access to funds.
The lottery has undoubtedly been enormously successful over the past five years and, as I have tried to illustrate this morning, it has played and will continue to play an ever increasing role in our cultural and sporting lives. Most importantly, the Government believe that through many of the reforms following the 1998 Act and through increased co-operation between the distributors, the lottery will continue to have a direct impact on some of the problems caused by social and economic inequality in the UK. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for introducing the debate this morning. It is timely to discuss the future of the lottery and I thank him for giving us that opportunity.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The Minister has concluded her speech. I must tell right hon. and hon. Members that there is a structure to Adjournment debates and it is not the practice to continue a debate after the Minister has replied to it. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was not present for the earlier part of the proceedings, I trust that he will not now try to continue the debate after the Minister has spoken.
10.52 am
Sitting suspended.

Bowel Cancer
11.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): After a lengthy and unexpected suspension, we come to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), on the diagnosis and care of bowel cancer.
Laura Moffatt: I have great pleasure in introducing the debate, particularly as it takes place in this special week, which is bowel cancer awareness week. The British are funny about mentioning bowels. As someone who was a nurse for 25 years, I have never had that problem—I spent most of my working life talking to people about their bowels. Therefore I am pleased to be able to do so legitimately today.
I shall run through the reasons why the debate is so important and give some facts and figures on bowel cancer in the United Kingdom. Bowel cancer is the third commonest cancer, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, and the second commonest cause of cancer death—after lung cancer. For men, it is the third commonest cancer after lung and prostate cancer.
Dr. Desmond Turner: In the context of the Government's target of preventing 100,000 deaths from cancer over the next few years, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an enormous opportunity to be seized with regard to bowel cancer, given that our current survival rates are so much poorer than the best in other countries, and that we do not have screening, apart from a pilot project that is under way?
Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that screening will become an important factor in reducing not only deaths from bowel cancer, but the misery of people going through the process. It will be important to the way in which we tackle bowel cancer. In 1997, 17,349 people died of bowel cancer and each year there are 34,000 new cases. The five-year survival rate is 37.9 per cent for men and 40.6 per cent for women, compared with around 60 per cent. in the United States of America—a statistic that highlights my hon. Friend's point. The majority of people affected are over 50, but bowel cancer can strike at a much earlier year. Despite its frequent occurrence, bowel cancer has had a low public profile—lower than that of other cancers. I hope that that is changing. I believe that a week such as this, in which awareness has been raised, will stimulate that change.
Yesterday, there was a superbly supported launch, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), at which many speakers debated the issues surrounding cancer. Ten leading cancer charities came under one umbrella, led by Colon Cancer Concern, which has brought together the concerns of those charities to ensure that they all point in the right direction and give similar advice, to prevent confusion. What I found most heartening about that launch, which was attended by my hon. Friend the Minister and which was warmly welcomed by people involved in caring for those with cancer, was the fact that it was hosted by Ladbroke, the betting people. It seemed important that an organisation whose raison d'etre is often escapism, having fun and opting out of the nitty-gritty of life felt able to support bowel cancer week. I congratulate Ladbroke on that.
14WH
There is good news. Bowel cancer is one of the most preventable cancers and one of the more curable if caught early. We can reduce the risk of it through diet, which should be high in fruit, vegetables and fibre. I strongly support campaigns to introduce more fruit into children's school diets. I congratulate the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment on its recent report on school meals, which highlighted the importance of fruit in children's diet. Many hon. Members signed a recent early-day motion to ensure that fruit is made available to children as part of school meals. That is an important step in the encouragement of better eating.
The Early Cancer Research Campaign submitted research findings that explained and supported the protective properties of fibre. These are early findings, but they could also demonstrate that there is a protective link with aspirin. Approximately 10 per cent. of bowel cancers are genetic, but there is no genetic testing despite the fact that family history is becoming increasingly important. However, most sufferers unfortunately do not have a family history of bowel cancer, which is why screening is most important. Regular screening is recommended, especially for those who are at risk.
Professor Gordon McVie, the director-general of the Cancer Research Campaign, said:
£84 million of the NHS spend on bowel cancer treatment and diagnosis and the incalculable cost of human suffering could be saved each year if only people knew about prevention.
We are here precisely to prevent the pain and misery and, of course, to save national health service spending on cancer.
Diagnosis is key. I pay tribute to Lyn Faulds-Wood, who is fronting a national helpline that people may call to talk about their symptoms, so that they have an idea of whether they have something to be worried about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department of Health have supported the helpline, which is an important move.
I hope that I will not offend anyone in the Chamber if I outline a few important symptoms. Hon. Members and colleagues may read what I have said and this may strike a note with them. It is important to take notice of persistent changes to bowel movements. Frequent bowel action, a need to go to the toilet again and again and diarrhoea-like stools are important indicators that must be heeded. Piles, itching in the anal area and a sore anus must be taken seriously if they last for more than six weeks. Unexplained anaemia, a lump or mass in the abdomen and severe colicky pain are all important indicators.
Treatment is available. Surgery is the primary treatment and, if the disease is caught early enough, is often the only treatment that is needed. However, drugs play a part. I want to raise the subject of drugs with the Minister. There are concerns that some anti-bowel cancer drugs may not be being offered to all the patients who need them. In particular, the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment—CERT—is concerned that there may still be some postcode prescribing, although it and I warmly welcome the ability of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence properly to evaluate drugs and make them available. I hope that we shall soon have good news about Taxol

15WH
and Taxitere. However, it appears that not enough bowel cancer sufferers are being offered treatment. It is important that that be done. There have been some enormous advances in cancer, especially since the appointment of the national cancer director and the setting up of NICE. It would be wrong for NICE to be used by the health authorities as an excuse for not providing drugs while awaiting a decision. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. CERT is looking for central funding for many of those drugs, to take away the fear that patients may not have access to them.
Bowel cancer is low profile, but I believe that, after this week, this debate and the launch of the helpline, that will change. I certainly hope so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has obtained the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself to take part.
11.40 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing the debate, especially as it is national bowel cancer week and the 10 groups in the consortium are really raising the awareness of the issue. Men and women throughout the country will learn about the issue, which previously has been a quiet area. I have recently returned from the United States, where we visited cancer institutes as part of the investigation by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We were made ultra-aware of how the Americans can do everything better than us—some of us have learned to live with that, but it is true in the case of their survival rates, which, at one year and five years, are greater than ours. They are just better at it, despite their problems with private insurance and so on. The Select Committee will pronounce on the situation. They can get about 90 per cent. recovery with early-stage detection of colorectal cancer, and that is simply not attained in this country.
There is agreement on both sides of the great pond that the decrease in incidence of bowel cancer—and there is a decrease—is due to increased screening practices and the removal of early-stage polyps from individuals who visit their doctor early. Mortality rates are also decreasing, and it is agreed that that is also due to decreasing trends in incidence rates and increasing survival rates. As my hon. Friend points out, 17,000 people still die every year and 32,000 people contract bowel cancer.
Detection at an early stage usually means surgery when polyps are removed. That prevents them becoming invasive, and that is imperative. However, there is great success with drugs such as Campto, as well as at later stages of the disease. Hopefully, with the good news that Taxotere has been approved, NICE will be looking at these drugs too, and the Government's plan to spread equality across the country in the availability of these drugs will penetrate into the colorectal drug scene as well. I congratulate the campaigning zeal of groups such as CancerBACUP, Cancer Link and CERT, and particularly within CERT the campaigning zeal of Hugh McKinney, who has kept us on our toes about drugs and that issue for some time.
16WH
I would like to say something about the risk factors. As my hon. Friend said, it is quite clear that there are genetic factors, family history problems and individual problems with those who have had irritable bowel syndrome for some time, which, in some cases, can be a preamble to some cancers. However, I should like to say a few words on the other risk factor—diet—to which my hon. Friend alluded. I have always known and been brought up to believe that in Scotland we have a terrible diet. There is no doubt that the bowel cancer rate is twice that in England. No doubt the Scottish Parliament will handle that in its own way. It is a diet that is short on vegetables and low in fibre, with delicacies such as fried Mars bars and chips. It has moved on to this year's model—Jaffa cakes and chips. The chips are advertised as coming from organic potatoes. That is all right, then; it will be thought that the incidence of bowel cancer syndrome will be less. I doubt that very much.
I am also pleased with Delia, Jamie and Nigel, who have taught a nation how to cook and got them interested in food and how to prepare it. I am much more impressed by local community groups—I should not say "more" because Delia and I support the same football team and I shall not be allowed to sit beside her. Nevertheless, I am impressed by local groups that teach young people about food and nutritional value. It is particularly impressive, when one visits schools, to see what used to be the domestic science classes—now food technology—in which young men and women discuss nutritional values and compete with each other to make the best delicacies. There is now a breakdown in genders, and both men and women make very good cooks, which is a real step forward, which is being encouraged.
I am also impressed by the research undertaken at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich at which the value of eating broccoli is being correlated with the decrease in the incidence of bowel cancer. Much exciting work is being undertaken at the genetic level, too. We, in the cancer field, are all imbued with such enthusiasm and excitement because we are learning so much more about its genetic basis and how to prevent other factors from moving it on to such deadly stages. During the past few years, the Government have taken some amazing initiatives in moving cancer up the agenda and I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that my hon. Friend the Minister was right to ask for more support for screening, that drugs be available throughout the country and that those who need such drugs will receive them. In the next two years, Britain's war against cancer will be at its most vigorous.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing such a timely debate in what is national bowel cancer week. I was delighted to attend its official launch yesterday, which was hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of both my hon. Friends, the organisations involved in yesterday's launch and the voluntary sector charities and patient groups, the professionals and those companies that have worked so hard with us. We rely on them to help us deliver the improvements that we must make.

17WH
If we are to make further steps forward in bowel cancer, it is clear that we must take action across the board on prevention, screening, early detection, high-quality treatment and care, palliative care and research. We have set clear targets for saving the lives of those suffering from cancer. During the next 10 years, we want to reduce the death rate by 20 per cent. for those under 75 years. That is an ambitious target, and whether we achieve it will depend on improvements in prevention as well as in treatment.
We can make large gains on the prevention side. Deaths from bowel cancer can be reduced by changes in people's life styles, such as improvements in diet, keeping active and, particularly, fruit and vegetable consumption. We are investing £750,000 from the public health development fund in a diet and cancer-reduction project. It will test approaches to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and produce a guide setting out best practice that we can replicate throughout the country. Five pilot sites for the project have been identified. It will be launched in July; we look forward to receiving the results. It is important that it provides to children and adults information not only on diet, but on how to improve access to certain foods. It is not much good knowing that we must increase our fruit and vegetable consumption if it takes three bus rides to reach the nearest shop that sells affordable fruit and vegetables. We must reduce not only the number of deaths from bowel cancer, but the inequalities.
This year's European week on cancer, which will be in October, will focus on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among children aged from five to 10 years, and their families. We will be providing funding to health promotion activities in respect of that initiative. However, we must go further, and I shall ask the new modernisation action team on prevention and inequalities to look at issues that surround diet and to examine what more can done to improve access to fruit and vegetables.
My hon. Friends mentioned awareness, which is extremely important. We know that colorectal cancer is one of our major cancer killers. Men and women who are diagnosed early, before it has spread to other parts of the body, have a good survival rate. However, we know that too many people ignore their symptoms, self-treat, or are too embarrassed to go to their doctor. I welcome the Cancer Research Campaign's appeal on breaking the taboo, and the work being carried out for national bowel cancer week to raise awareness and encourage people to discuss openly symptoms that they might otherwise have been too embarrassed to consider.
The problem is not simply about patients being aware of their symptoms. We must ensure that their symptoms are identified quickly, referred appropriately and treated speedily. That is why, from July, all patients whose symptoms could suggest bowel cancer and who are referred urgently by their general practitioners will be offered out-patient appointments within two weeks. Although bowel cancer is a common problem nationally, an individual GP is unlikely to see more than one or two cases a year. We therefore need to provide support for GPs so that they can distinguish between patients whose symptoms may be cancer and a larger number of patients who have similar symptoms arising from other causes.
18WH
We have been working with primary and secondary care groups, voluntary organisations and patient groups to develop cancer referral guidelines to help primary care teams identify patients who need to be urgently referred for specialist appointments. The guidelines will also help GPs to identify patients unlikely to have cancer, who can then be reassured and safely watched in primary care. Those guidelines are being sent to GPs, primary care groups, trusts and health authorities this week. They were launched on the internet at the end of March and will be widely available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley mentioned screening, and we are anxious to know the merits of introducing a national screening programme. Following advice from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, the Government are piloting bowel cancer screening. The pilot will provide valuable information on the effectiveness, feasibility and public acceptability of screening for bowel cancer in an ordinary national health service setting rather than a specialist research environment. The pilot will run until 2002 and its results will provide the basis for a decision on the introduction of any national population screening on bowel cancer.
We want all cancer patients, wherever they live, to have access to the same high-quality services. Since 1997, we have invested significant extra resources on colorectal cancer to support the implementation of an evidence-based guidance programme. That has been enormously successful in improving early diagnosis and quality of treatment for patients. We are also investing nearly £200 million in cancer equipment to improve diagnosis and treatment services and cut delays. We will work closely with health authorities and hospitals to ensure that those additional resources are used for those in the greatest need.
Cancer patients also want certainty and choice about the care that they receive. We must ensure that we place patients at the centre of the process, so we shall invest £6 million over the next two years in a national project to improve the process of care for patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer. Nine cancer collaboratives centres have been based across the national health service to cover 14 million people, and have been selected to take part in a national programme to streamline every stage in the patient's journey, from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up care. The aim is to create a gold standard of care for cancer patients and to spread the new ideas across the NHS.
All the experts in the field—everyone who is part of the cancer journey—must work together to identify problems and bottlenecks, and to ensure that the patient is central to the process. It will mean the earliest possible appointments with specialists for patients whose GPs suspect that they have cancer, a speedy diagnostic process and, perhaps, attending one-stop clinics where all the diagnostic tests are carried out on the same day, thereby removing the need for repeated visits. It means obtaining results quickly, booking appointments so that patients know when and where they will be treated, and providing a choice of dates for the convenience of the patient. It means co-ordinating aspects of treatment to speed up the process. For example, a patient who requires radiotherapy following surgery should not experience delays between the various components of treatment. Having visited the cancer collaboratives

19WH
centre in Birmingham, I was impressed by the progress being made to improve support and treatment for patients.
My hon. Friends expressed concerns about the availability of drug treatments. I share their concerns about the postcode lottery, whereby certain drugs are available in one health authority and not others. The Government firmly believe that treatment should be based on people's ability to benefit, wherever they live. We are considering additional topics for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence during the following year, and anti-cancer drugs are among them. Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, is leading urgent discussions with NICE to decide on the order and level of priority. I take seriously the points made by my hon. Friends. The resources available to health authorities have increased—a 6.8 per cent. cash increase was announced in December, and, since the Budget, an extra £600 million has been allocated to health authorities for this financial year. Additional resources for drugs are being made available, and investment must be improved and increased in future.
Concerns have also been expressed about work force issues. We need better information for work force planning, more flexible training and development, and innovative solutions to some long-standing problems. Work force development is one of our priorities in terms of improving cancer services. Professor Mike Richards will be working closely with the profession to ensure that there are sufficient trained personnel in diagnosis, treatment and care, and that working practices are modernised to best effect.
20WH
High-quality research, in prevention and treatment, is a vital element in our cancer strategy. In 1998–99, the Government spent £5.5 million on research into colorectal cancer. Research included studies of how bowel cancer treatment and referral delays vary across services in the Yorkshire area, and what patient and service factors affect those variations. Other research included systematic collection and analysis of existing evidence on surgery and palliative chemotherapy for older people who have bowel cancer, the results of which are currently under review. It is important that we do not forget the importance of palliative care, which is an essential part of improving cancer services and support for patients.
Following the Downing street seminar last year, which was hosted by the Prime Minister, the cancer research funders forum was established with the main aim of ensuring that a co-ordinated approach to research funding is pursued wherever possible, in order to obtain the best results. My hon. Friends will be aware that a broad consultation and national debate will take place during the next three months, which will enable us to draw up a national plan in the summer. Discussion of cancer and bowel cancer issues will be part of that process. We have made it clear that cancer is one of our top priorities.
As my hon. Friends said, survival rates must be increased. We should not only consider what is happening elsewhere in the world but tackle inequalities in this country. We are making progress on colorectal cancer. Survival rates are improving, but we have a long way to go. My hon. Friends are right to be optimistic about the progress that we can make. We know that huge challenges lie ahead, but I believe that we can make a real difference in better prevention, awareness and treatment and swifter diagnosis, which will ultimatelty mean that we can save lives.

Connex South Central
12 noon
Mr. Tom Brake: I shall keep my comments reasonably brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would like to make a short contribution.
The timing of this debate is fortunate. As the Minister will know, negotiations with Connex and Govia, the two competitors vying for the contract to run suburban train services in south London, are in full swing. I am sure that the Minister appreciates the irony of Govia, which is part-owned by the French state railway, SNCF, bidding to run train services in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he might like to comment on that and on the fact that the Vivendi group, which owns Connex, part-owns Govia—a bizarre state of affairs. The Minister and the Strategic Rail Authority will have to be especially vigilant in assessing the bids to ensure that they are truly competitive.
Connex has both an advantage and a disadvantage in the negotiations. As it now provides the train services involved, commuters have first-hand experience of the service that it provides. To discover their views, I conducted a rail survey in January, to which 145 commuters responded. The survey was conducted before Connex's services were reduced as a result of the industrial dispute. Several people who responded to the questionnaire contacted me shortly afterwards to say that their responses would have been significantly different had they received the questionnaire during the dispute.
Passengers perceive Connex's performance as poor. Three quarters of those surveyed said that their trains were late on arrival and, perhaps most damaging for Connex, more than half did not want its franchise to be extended. Connex might argue, with some justification, that such a self-selected sample is not representative and that the survey was not scientific. However, it is clear that it must significantly improve the quality of its service both before and after any franchise extension if it is to receive the support of a vocal minority of its customers.
The survey also revealed some worrying statistics for the Government. An overwhelming majority of respondents—68 per cent.—opposed Government plans for the partial privatisation of London Underground. The Minister might like to comment on that.
Although the survey provided useful feedback, it was completed in January and I wanted more up-to-date information from commuters before today's debate. In the past few months, I have received a significant number of letters informing me of commuters'views. I see that the Minister has a copy of the leaflet distributed at Wallington station yesterday, asking commuters travelling to London this morning to join me to share their impressions of train services and their hopes for the future. On my journey this morning, I was joined by no fewer than three Connex employees, too—the station manager for the stations in my constituency, her deputy and their commercial manager. I was met at Victoria by a further two Connex employees, including Geoff Harrison-Mee, the managing director. I had until now underestimated the power of the humble Adjournment debate.
22WH
I shall detail some of the points that my fellow commuters and others made. Some matters will require substantial investment. Others require a different attitude or better staff training. I welcome the fact that Connex has established a college of environment and transport, as it is clear that some problems are the result of a lack of training or awareness.
Another common theme is anxiety about communication. On Friday, I drove to one of my local stations, Carshalton, to find that my train had been cancelled. I spoke to the person in the ticket office, who advised me that a train that I could catch instead would leave shortly from Carshalton Beeches—a station on a different line. When I arrived there, I found that that train had been cancelled. The person in the ticket office told me that staff there were not informed about cancellations on other lines. It is hard to believe that employees of the same company, working in ticket offices just a mile apart, do not know about cancellations on other lines run by their company. That communication problem seems relatively easy to solve.
The electronic displays are definitely an improvement, which I welcome, but they must be supplemented by verbal communication so that when information about a train disappears from the display because it has been cancelled, as occasionally happens, passengers are told what has happened and why. At the moment, information about the train appears until the last moment and then disappears, to be replaced by information about the next train, which is due to arrive in 15 or 20 minutes'time. The display must provide real-time information. Connex is working on that—the sooner it manages to resolve the problem, the better.
I have received many complaints about late-running trains. This morning I raised with a commuter, Mr. Williamson, the unwillingness of train operating companies to pay compensation for delayed journeys and consequent loss. Mr. Williamson is a professional musician who has suffered consequential financial loss because of train delays. The train operator—not Connex in that instance—was not able to help. Reliability is also affected when trains run early. I have on several occasions arrived at the station dead on time to find the train that I was expecting to catch just pulling out of the station, 30 seconds early. Therefore reliability at both ends of the spectrum needs to be addressed.
Frequency is the major concern expressed in correspondence and is an area where results would have been significantly different had the survey been carried out a couple of weeks later. Since the drivers'overtime dispute, an adequate timetable has been replaced by a frustrating one. For commuters using stations such as Hackbridge, there are enormous gaps in the timetable at peak hours. In some cases, they have to switch to a slower line so that they can get a seat. I spoke a couple of days ago to someone who no longer commuted from Carshalton; he had had to change to Wallington, which is further away and involves a longer journey, because he wanted to guarantee getting a seat in the morning.
The cleanliness of trains is also frequently raised and the problem is all too visible. Trains are awash with fast-food packaging. One's feet stick to carriage floors because people have discarded their Coke cans, depositing the residue on the floor. I am afraid that those are the travelling conditions that people face daily.

23WH
What is the future according to Connex? It sets out its proposals in its document "20/20 Vision"; I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the content of that document. The future according to Govia is not yet ready for publication, which is disappointing as it will leave commuters—and Members of Parliament, for that matter—with little time in which to assess the viability of its bid. The Connex document contains many attractive propositions: immediate compensation of 50 per cent. of the ticket price if trains are delayed for more than 30 minutes and 100 per cent. if trains are delayed for more than an hour; replacement of the 600 slam-door carriages by 2003; and proposals to increase line capacity and speed up commuter trains. However, what the people who speak to me, and I as a commuter, want is an undertaking that services will improve. The mental leap required to imagine the service outlined in the document, compared with the present service, is too great.
Certain guarantees are needed. The first is that reliability, punctuality and cleanliness will improve and overcrowding decrease. Secondly, the service levels that customers enjoyed before the dispute will need to be restored. Thirdly, we will need a genuine metro-style service: one for which commuters can turn up and be reasonably certain that there will be another train in 10 or 15 minutes, so there is no mad rush to catch the next one on the timetable. Trains should not be bunched together. There is not much point in having four trains an hour if they arrive in pairs with a time delay of only five minutes between the two.
Fourthly, in the London borough of Sutton there is clearly a demand for more trains to run later on a Friday and Saturday night. At the moment, there is a desperate rush to catch the last train home when people have been out to see a show in central London or have been making good use of the facilities in Sutton town centre. We need a company with vision to deliver the services that we require.
Unless Connex and Govia can sign up to those four commitments, they will not be worthy of an extended franchise and the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority should reject their proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I offered Connex and Govia the opportunity to debate these issues in front of passengers and to a separate audience of businesses. I am pleased that both have accepted the invitation jointly, so passengers and businesses can directly compare the proposals on offer. My hon. Friend and I can assure Connex and Govia of a lively and well-informed audience at those meetings.
Rail privatisation was supposed to deliver rail services of quality with standards of customer care that were equal to those of the aviation industry. I am afraid that it has not done so. The franchise negotiations provide the last opportunity for train companies, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government to convince passengers that significant benefits will derive from the privatised railway industry. For the sake of millions of beleaguered commuters, I hope that they succeed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) obtained the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself to participate.
12.11 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall be brief, but I wish to add a couple of points. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), to the Minister and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this timely and important debate.
As I listened to my hon. Friend describing his journey to London today, I wondered whether he was being protected or whether various Connex managers were being protected by him from many of their customers. Certainly, on the basis of the heated correspondence that I receive from my constituents, it is the management of Connex that needs protection. I am impressed by my hon. Friend's journey, and I look forward to experiencing a similar quality of service with the managing director and others on hand.
My hon. Friend has already described the glitzy presentation and vision that we have received from Connex, but we are still waiting for the more detailed vision of Govia to be published. From my personal experience and that of many of my constituents, since it secured its first franchise Connex has been long on promises but poor on performance and delivery. My constituents regularly experience cancellation of services, short-running trains, late-running trains and overcrowding. Only last year, Connex was fined substantially for running overcrowded trains. It is vital that the two companies competing for the franchise understand that my constituents do not want a regime of penalties: they want reliable services. My hon. Friend was right to set out the four tests that should be applied, among others, to the two bids.
I wish to dwell on two issues. One is about station maintenance and management. Over the past two years, I have experienced an appallingly unsatisfactory service from Connex regarding the upgrading and maintenance of two of the main stations Cheam—and Sutton—in myconstituency. After almost four years of to-ing, fro-ing and buck passing, we have at last seen work commence at Sutton station, which we hope will lead to a major improvement in accessibility for disabled people and improved facilities for the travelling public.
Understandably, local people faced considerable inconvenience as buildings around the station were knocked down. For months, hoardings were up but no action was taking place, despite senior management's claim that the project was on target for completion about now. In fact, the work will not be completed for many months to come.
Another project at Cheam station has not even started. On the up platform to London every day—and particularly on rainy days like today—a canopy, occupied by pigeons but with no glass or plastic in it, makes the experience of travelling to work sheer misery. I have received letter after letter promising me and my constituents that we will see much needed investment and that the canopy will be replaced—but it has not happened. Why not? My constituents do not understand how a company that cannot get some of the

25WH
basics right can seriously compete for another franchise. I hope that it will take that on board, and that the Minister will assure me that some of those concerns will be reflected back to Connex.
We have a franchise that is working at the moment, and we are in the bidding process. One would have thought that the company that is running the service would want to put on the best possible service to guarantee that it gets the franchise back again. This company, however, has adopted a novel tactic: it is running a worse service than hitherto. If, as a result, it loses the franchises, as many of my constituents feel that it should, what will happen in the interregnum when it is the caretaker for a service that it will pass on to another subsidiary of its parent company? Will Connex immediately pass it over? Will it continue to run the service and, as many of my constituents would see it, run it down still further? My constituents were promised that the service would get better through the franchising process, but it has got worse. I hope that the Minister will give us some words of assurance about that. Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to hearing the answers from both companies in due course.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the renewal of the Connex South Central franchise. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his assiduousness in collating and representing his constituents'concerns about these services. I welcome the news that Connex and Govia have agreed to debate such concerns with audiences of passengers and business people.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), especially about station maintenance and management, and intend to say a few words about the current worsening of the service provided by Connex as a result of a number of difficulties. I take a keen interest in this matter, both as the Minister with responsibility for transport in London and as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, whose three railway stations are served by Connex South Central trains. Indeed, the House will know how concerned I am about performance and service quality on the rail network. My mailbag shows all too well that passengers on Connex South Central services have first-hand experience of the frustrations caused by poor performance.
The latest performance figures rate Connex South Central in category C for overall performance, and the results of the first national passenger survey show that only 71 per cent. of Connex South Central's passengers were satisfied or very satisfied with their service. There is clearly considerable room for improvement. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam outlined his concerns about the current problems affecting Connex South Central's services. Over recent weeks, those services have been adversely affected by a dispute about working
26WH
hours that has led to some drivers refusing to work overtime and on rest days. Without overtime and rest-day working, Connex cannot deliver all the services in the advertised timetable. In order to mitigate the effects of the dispute, and to provide as much certainty to passengers as possible, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has agreed that Connex can operate an emergency timetable until the dispute is settled or the new drivers are fully trained.
Although the shadow SRA and I accept that the situation is not ideal, it is better for passengers to know in advance which services will run, so that they can plan their journeys and reduce delays to a minimum. The emergency timetable will not excuse Connex from its passengers charter commitments, under which it remains liable to compensate passengers for delayed or cancelled journeys.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will be aware, the Connex South Central franchise was awarded in April 1996 to Connex Rail Ltd., a subsidiary of Vivendi SA, for a seven-year period that commenced on 26 May 1996. However, many considered those franchise contracts to be a potential obstacle to improvement. In view of that, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director last September, and asked him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the franchise agreements.
When considering renegotiation requests, we ask the franchising director to give due weight to six commitments. First, he should consider current performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency. Secondly, there must be new or earlier investment. Thirdly, better performance must be secured. Fourthly, there must be initiatives to promote integrated transport. Fifthly, we require a willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services. Sixthly, value for the taxpayer must be obtained.
In November 1999, the franchising director announced that the Connex South Central franchise would be one of the first three to be considered for replacement. That franchise, the Great North Eastern Railway and the Chiltern franchises were chosen because they were thought to offer great potential for improvements and developments, which could be delivered in a relatively short time scale. On 14 March, the franchising director announced that Connex Rail and Govia, the current franchisee of Thameslink, had been shortlisted for negotiations for the Connex South Central franchise.
The franchising director will look for evidence that bidders are committed to a step-change improvement in service quality. In particular, he wants early achievement of high performance standards, including cleanliness of trains—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a point about that—as well as provision of information to passengers and demonstrable benefits to passengers throughout the door-to-door journey experience. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will expect the Govia and Connex bids to meet all necessary competitive criteria.
Mr. Brake: I am happy that the Minister has confirmed that the bids must be competitive, but could

27WH
he explain how the process will work? How will he ensure that Vivendi and Govia do not talk to each other behind the scenes?
Mr. Hill: That is the franchising director's task. We have total confidence that he will be aware of the links to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and we expect him to scrutinise the detail of the bids carefully. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
The franchising director has made it clear that proposals will need to be far more ambitious than Connex's initial submissions. Passengers will rightly look for signs that potential operators are serious about making improvements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the contents of the proposals from Connex and Govia cannot be disclosed at the current stage of the franchise replacement process. However, we are determined that passengers should be given a say in their rail services. When considering proposals for franchise replacement, the franchising director will consult local authorities, passenger transport executives, rail users consultative committees, regional planning bodies and regional development agencies, among others. He will encourage rail users consultative committees to talk to a wide range of individuals and local groups, and conduct his own national passenger survey.
Anxiety has also been expressed about several weaknesses identified in current franchising agreements, which the franchising director will seek to rectify in the new contracts. He will try to strengthen requirements in several key respects: on performance, for example, there will be higher penalties and lower breach thresholds, with more robust operating plans for a consistently more reliable service.
Improvement is also needed to tackle overcrowding, which is a serious problem. There will be a new demand limit, which will reflect the capabilities of trains and infrastructure. It will be increased when capacity is increased as part of the replacement franchise agreement. There will also be regular surveys to show satisfaction ratings for each company, with penalties for those companies that fall below benchmark levels.
Passenger service requirements will be protected, and the present higher train mileage will be written into the replacement franchise agreement. The passengers charter will be revised every five years, with standards continually improving. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will also aim to improve compensation for passengers. The new and improved passenger
28WH
performance measure will include all trains, every day. including weekends, with no allowances for void days, unlike the current passengers charter measurement.
Mr. Burstow: Can the Minr reassure us that there will no longer be an incentive to run short, and therefore overcrowded, trains so as to claim to have run a train?
Mr. Hill: We expect that phenomenon, with which I am familiar, to be avoided under the terms of the new franchise agreement.
The importance of safety cannot be overstressed. Franchisees will be under an obligation to produce plans continually to drive up standards and to develop transport integration. New rolling stock will need to include space for bicycles, which is always a matter of concern to Liberal Democrat Members.
The franchising director's objective is to replace the shorter franchises expiring by 2004 within about two years. However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting Connex's proposal or any other. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, expansion of network capacity, improvements for passengers and value for taxpayers'money. If applications fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director may decide instead to allow the existing Connex South Central franchise to run its course until it expires in 2003. That would be the second-best solution, but it is preferable to agreeing to a new, longer franchise without having secured additional passenger benefits.
The franchising director has already shown that he is prepared to refuse an earlier bid from Connex for a franchise extension. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will recall that the Connex South Central franchise agreement incorporated a clause that gave Connex the option to bid for an extension of the franchise term from seven to 15 years, subject to the franchising director agreeing the terms of the extension with Connex and being satisfied that it represented value for money. In July 1998, the franchising director received and considered proposals from Connex. He concluded that they were not sufficient to justify extending the franchise and refused to extend it.
I trust that the hon. Gentlemen will be reassured that any decision on the replacement of the Connex South Central or any other franchise will be taken only after the most careful consideration of the benefits that replacement would bring, and after consultation with passengers and other interested parties. Only companies that guarantee better performance, more investment, expansion of network capacity, improvements for passengers and value for money for the taxpayer will succeed.

Manningham Mills
12.29 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the regeneration of the magnificent, historic Manningham mills. It is a pleasure to have the debate under your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an equal pleasure that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is the Minister who will respond to the debate. I assure him that if he gives me something today, the best wishes of my colleagues, my constituents and other citizens of Bradford will ensure that his career not only flies but soars. I am sure that he is far too sensible to fly too close to the sun if that happens, and will avoid the fate of Icarus.
The regeneration of Manningham mills is vital and urgent, because the fabric of the building is deteriorating day by day, and if nothing is done the point will come when the mills cannot be saved. Delay is a deadly enemy and may prove the mills'nemesis; I cannot stress that enough. We are near the point at which we will not be able to save the building, which would be a disaster not only for the mills but for Bradford and the pride of Bradford. It deserves to be, and must be, saved.
The mill was commissioned by Samuel Cunliffe Lister, Lord Masham, was built between 1871 and 1873 and is one of the most remarkable buildings not only in England, but in the world. The chimney is 249 ft high and dominates the Bradford skyline, as the mill once dominated Bradford's economic, social and political development. Its scale is immense, with 16 acres of floor space and a facade that is 1,050 ft long. I am not an expert on architecture, but I am informed that it is monumental, and that the style derives from the Italian renaissance, with an emphasis on proportion and symmetry, and has elements of the baroque that lend drama to the structure. Sounds wicked, innit?
The mill has a special historic significance to the Labour movement and the Labour party. In December 1890, Lister imposed wage cuts on his workers, which led to a bitter five-month strike. I want to quote a short account of the end of that strike, which will have a resonance for the modern Labour movement:
The strike was now gaining a stronger hold. By March 3rd the number of strikers totalled over 4,000 and production was brought to a standstill. On Thursday, March 26th, a procession through Bradford followed by a public meeting was attended by 20,000 people. Sympathy for the strikers was growing. A few days later, on Easter Monday, March 30th, crowds of similar numbers again gathered to protest.
The climax was near. It started on Sunday, April 12th, 1891. Drew approached Bradford's Chief Constable, the Mayor and the Town Clerk to advise them that the Bradford Trades Council had arranged for Ben Tillett, the leader of the London Docks Strike in 1889, to speak at St George's Hall. He requested permission to hold an overflow meeting on open space next to the Hall. The Watch Committee refused.
Nevertheless, the meetings went ahead. One of the speakers at the outdoor meeting was Haydn Saunders, a member of the Socialist League and a Walsall Councillor. He stood on a bench to address the crowd and was promptly arrested. He was taken to the police station and placed in the charge room but was not charged. It was apparent that the Watch Committee and the police were reluctant to have their actions discussed in court.
The following day, April 13th, things took a more serious turn. The Times carried this account of that Monday evening:
30WH
"As was feared, the disturbances which commenced yesterday afternoon became serious during the evening, so much so that throughout the whole of the night the town was one scene of disorder and uproar. The military had to be called out, and the Riot Act read by the Mayor, Mr E W Hammond."
So it was that, at 5 minutes past 9 o'clock that evening, 106 rank and file of the Durham Light Infantry arrived in the town centre from Bradford Moor, each having 40 rounds of ball cartridge.
They paraded the streets with bayonets drawn and charged the people in various directions. This proved ineffective and a baton charge by the police was deemed necessary. As a result of the evening's violence, many were injured and 10 men were arrested.
The strike began to change the course of the Labour movement. While it was going on, W. H. Drew was discussing with Fred Jowett and other colleagues how they could challenge the intervention of the police. Drew said:
Labour must take political action to gain control of the police force. It's the only way to protect the civil liberties of the working class and ensure a fair deal.
Although the strike failed, it was of immense significance: it led directly to the founding of the Independent Labour party on 13 January 1893. Among those present at the founding conference were George Bernard Shaw, Keir Hardie—the first socialist Member of Parliament—and Fred Jowett, who became a Minister in the 1924 Labour Government.
In addition to its historical impact on Bradford and the Labour movement, the mill's economic impact on Bradford was immense. At its height, it employed more than 7,000 workers. Many of Bradford's newer population started their working lives in the mill. They owe it a great debt. Sadly, the textile industry was hit by various recessions after the second world war and jobs were lost steadily.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said about this enormous landmark in Labour's history, once he has achieved his aim and that wonderful building is refurbished and brought back to life, could we have a plaque to commemorate the sterling work of those early pioneers of Labour's history, particularly in relation to the Manningham mill strike?
Mr. Singh: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will remember and perhaps propose at a later date. As I said, the textile industry was hit by various recessions and jobs were lost steadily. The recession of the 1980s hit the mill hard, and in 1997 Lister called in the administrators. Over the past two decades, various schemes have been proposed to rescue the mill and bring it back into use. Sadly, all the schemes have proved entirely worthless.
However, in 1996, local people formed the Manningham Mills Community Association, and through their efforts part of the mill has been rescued for community use. They also launched an intensive consultation exercise, and in October 1998, the community association launched its plan, entitled "Community Regeneration and Manningham Mills".
Things have moved on since then. In December 1999, a trust and a shadow board consisting of effective and able people were formed. I had the pleasure of chairing the meeting and launching that shadow board. It is hoped that the trust board will be formalised in

31WH
September. In addition, a business plan has been drawn up—which I have seen—that shows that the mill can become self-financing. Both the private and public sectors have shown considerable interest in using the mill. However, the real problem preventing that interest from being realised is the state of the building, which is in a rapid process of deterioration. A lot of essential work needs to be carried out to make the mill safe for use and to weatherproof it. Until that has been done, none of the interest expressed in using the mill will come to fruition.
My local paper had an editorial—it seems to have gone walkies for the time being—that emphasised the point that the mill is suffering from all kinds of dilapidation, and we must deal with that soon. The cost of making the mill weatherproof and safe for use is estimated at about £3.5 million. We have been negotiating with Yorkshire Forward, the local regional development agency, which has taken over the grant-making role and responsibility for such work from English Partnerships.
Yorkshire Forward has been cautious, but encouraging. I understand its caution, because £3.5 million is a large amount of public money. It wants either the council or the private sector to take ownership of the mill. It has yet to accept that the trust is the most appropriate body to take the mills forward. The council has been positive but does not want long-term ownership of the mills. I understand and support the council's position. It should have a facilitating and enabling role.
Making the mills viable would pose enormous problems for the council, which would have difficulty raising funds from other sources. That is precisely where the trust would be the more appropriate body. As for the private sector, no one has yet made a realistic proposal for the purchase of the mills. There has been, and is, a great deal of interest in making commercial use of the mills, but not in taking ownership and responsibility, on account of the amount of money and work needed simply to make them weatherproof and safe for use.
A private partner can be found, but the money is needed first. No one seems able to resolve that chicken and egg problem. We hope that the debate will help. The logjam needs to be broken, because it is leading to inordinate and damaging delay. Each day of delay leads to further deterioration. If it is decided later that the mills need to be saved, the cost will be even greater, because the time will soon come when it will not be physically, practically possible to save these magnificent mills.
No one denies that £3.5 million is a great deal of money. However, we ask for a hand up, not a handout. Perhaps it is a bit of a handout, but I stress again to my hon. Friend the Minister that it will be a hand up, and that if we are given the money we can save the mills. I make a pledge: given the interest already shown by the public and private sectors, the vigour of the trust board members and the sheer will and energy of the people of Bradford, if we are given the money we will make the mills financially viable. I ask my hon. Friend to break the logjam immediately. Let us stop the delay, and, literally, the rot, and get on with the task of regenerating Manningham mills.
32WH
We need a positive, proactive approach and we need to take decisions urgently. My plea today is even stronger because Bradford has lost its assisted area status. Therefore, a ministerial statement is even more important for the regeneration of the local economy in my constituency and in Bradford generally. Today's business plan shows that the regeneration of Manningham mills is commercially viable. We can make a success of it.
Regeneration of the mills would benefit the local community and my constituency, and would be a major step in Bradford's regeneration. It would be a clear signal that Bradford is moving forward economically and looking to the future. The city is bidding to be the European capital of culture in 2008—something that I warmly welcome and wholeheartedly support. The mills could become a major focus of cultural activity in the district. They are an architectural and cultural achievement, a monument that encapsulates the reason for Bradford's existence and reflects the historical changes there in the past 160 years.
The mills rank as one of the greatest achievements of Victorian industrial architecture, challenged perhaps only by the Albert docks in Liverpool. They are probably the finest textile mills that have ever been built. Although their roots are in the past, their biggest impact could yet be in the future. Will my hon. Friend the Minister help me to save the past and safeguard the future?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) for raising the important issue of the regeneration of Manningham mills in Bradford. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues that he raised. I reassure him, as I do my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), whom, I am glad to see in the Chamber, that—notwithstanding my London links—nowhere could be closer to my heart than the great city of Bradford. We have already been reminded of the historic associations of outstanding Labour party figures from Bradford and London.
It is important that, when appropriate, we make best use of the marvellous buildings that form a key part of our industrial heritage. West Yorkshire—and Bradford in particular—has some fine examples of redundant mill buildings that have had new life breathed into them. Examples of successful conversions that readily spring to mind are Dean Clough mills in Halifax, Salts mill at Saltaire, the old wool merchant buildings in Little Germany near Bradford city centre and Carlisle mills in Manningham, which is a thriving business centre. I understand that, in another part of Bradford, at Little Horton, the old Douglas mill is being looked at in the context of the new deal for communities programme. More generally, Bradford's rich and diverse social and built environment is a key strength that can help to revitalise the district and bring back the prosperity of its Victorian heyday.
I am keenly aware of the history and grandeur of the Manningham mills grade II star listed mill complex and of its prominent location in the city. As it has dominated

33WH
and graced the skyline of Bradford for more than 125 years, I fully understand why the Manningham Mills Community Association wishes to protect and promote its use. I am also aware of the report and proposals for the use of the mills that the association published in March last year.
Although the community association's report paints a vivid picture of the massive challenge in successfully regenerating the complex, it is evident that the association is bringing significant local commitment and enthusiasm to the search for new uses for the mills that can sustain their life in the millennium. I am impressed by fact that the community achieved, via a 72-hour challenge in 1997, a complete voluntary makeover of the ground floor space of the south mill. The association is also active in ensuring that local people have a say in the plans to develop the mills and that the building is kept on the agenda for local policy makers and the media.
Although Manningham mills are an important focus of the local community, I am pleased that much good work is being done in the wider area around the mills by the Manningham and Girlington regeneration partnership. The partnership is currently delivering a seven-year scheme, which has attracted nearly £10 million from single regeneration budget funding to revitalise the area. The current financial year is the third year of the programme. It is expected to be matched by £12 million of public and private sector leverage. We welcome that level of financial input.
The programme will play a vital role in regenerating the area surrounding the mills. It has a challenging agenda, aiming to raise the level of education attained by the area's young people, which, in some cases, is less than half the national average, and to reduce by half the level of unemployment among young people, which is currently 30 per cent. Achieving those aims will be crucial to revitalising not only the Manningham area, but Bradford as a whole.
A key strength of the Manningham and Girlington regeneration partnership is the way in which it puts young people at the heart of the scheme and engages their active involvement. A youth partnership has been established; it has four places on the main partnership board and has real responsibilities for funding and programme management. Projects include community policing, help for young drug users, and new training and work experience opportunities for the young employed, including customised modern apprenticeship schemes in construction and health service occupations. I am sure that those projects and others like them will go a long way to tackle the problems facing the neighbourhood.
The Manningham mills complex is split into two distinct parts: the south mill and the north mill. The north mill has a variety of uses already and is not part of the current discussion. However, the south mill has been vacant for many years and various proposals have been made for its development, all of which have proved unsuccessful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West pointed out.
Most proposals made for regenerating the south mill in the past have been instigated by the private sector. However, because of the complex's sheer size—38,000 sq m—and the extent of its dilapidation, the private sector has been unable to raise the necessary finance and
34WH
the proposals have failed. If local regeneration is to work, it is essential that the private sector is fully involved and committed as an active partner. Construction firms can target local people for training and jobs and, if the Manningham mills complex is to succeed, I would like to see a focus on local labour and supply chains. Banks, and agencies such as the Prince's Youth Business Trust, can help people with self-employment. Digging into the potential of the community brings out great entrepreneurial spirit, which can spark ideas to breathe new life into community facilities.
Perhaps one of the greatest impediments to regenerating the mill complex is the scale of the initial works required to arrest the deterioration of the property and to make it wind and watertight. Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency for Yorkshire and the Humber, and Bradford council have agreed that an attempt should be made to bring the complex into public ownership, to carry out works to arrest further deterioration and to create a development platform that could be offered on the market as a development opportunity. The necessary initial works—making the complex more attractive to the private sector—will require investment of about £3 million. By any measure, that is a substantial public investment.
To facilitate the process, the council would acquire the building from the administrator and carry out the necessary works to create the development of opportunity, with the assistance of 100 per cent. funding from Yorkshire Forward. The council and Yorkshire Forward have worked together for some time on the scheme. Various preliminary works have been completed, including a full structural survey of the buildings and a site investigation. A report has been completed outlining the works required, which include selective demolition to improve circulating space, new roofing to some of the better parts of the building, temporary roofing elsewhere, re-glazing and drainage repairs.
Mr. Singh: Most of what my hon. Friend says is true—the money is there—but the problem is that Bradford council does not want permanent, long-term ownership of the mills. We feel that the trust would be best placed to take over such ownership. That is a sticking point.
Mr. Hill: I assure my hon. Friend that I propose to talk about the trust in due course if I have time.
In tandem with essential work, Yorkshire Forward is co-ordinating a targeted marketing exercise to identify a developer or end user who would be prepared to formally commit to the continuing regeneration of the whole complex or a substantial part of it. Consultants hope to advertise in journals over the next month. Identifying a developer or end user must be an integral part of justifying major public investment. Putting £3 million into the complex, for it then to remain vacant and fall into disrepair again, would not provide the longterm sustainable future for the mills that we all want them to have. Also, testing the market's response would help to suggest any additional public funding that may be required to complete the complex's regeneration.

35WH
I am aware of the strong local feeling that the complex should not be allowed to deteriorate further; my hon. Friend expressed that eloquently. The concern is that regeneration should take place as soon as possible. However—very important—Yorkshire Forward has a public duty to ensure that it makes the most efficient and sustainable use of the public resources awarded to it. Alongside that, I understand that the recently launched Manningham Mills Trust, with which my hon. Friend is so closely involved, is finalising a business plan for regenerating the complex, albeit with the intention of calling on Yorkshire Forward to contribute the necessary funding for the plan. Yorkshire Forward has great respect for the trust and will give serious consideration to its proposals when they are finalised.
At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was pleased to receive Yorkshire Forward's regional economic strategy to bring about such regeneration over the next 10 years. In that context, Bradford is facing particular challenges and opportunities and Yorkshire Forward is working in partnership with the city council and the private sector to inject confidence and investment into the city centre. Development proposals include assisting with site assembly and infrastructure works associated with the redevelopment and expansion of the retail area, and assisting with the mixed-use redevelopment of the Little Germany area of the city centre through site and building purchase and assembly. A new company, the Little Germany Urban Village Company Ltd., has recently been set up with the assistance of Yorkshire
36WH
Forward to drive forward and oversee the regeneration of the area. Investing in the city centre and working closely with the single regeneration budget and other programmes is one way of ensuring that deprived local communities adjacent to the city, such as Manningham, have wider access to education and training initiatives.
In conclusion, I fully appreciate the issues raised by the regeneration of Manningham mills, in particular the need to harness the powerful presence of the mills, to find a committed developer and end user and—most important—to achieve all that by putting together a sustainable funding package. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are putting in place a range of policies to assist in the achievement of those aims as well as the economic recovery of the area.
The wider partnership in which the private sector is fully involved must be in the driving seat, with the aim of finding an acceptable and sustainable solution. I welcome the work that Yorkshire Forward, together with the city council, is carrying out to determine how that can best be achieved. The regional development agencies are already strengthening the power of the regions to become economic powerhouses in their own right. We need to get people off benefits and into work so that they can make a lasting contribution to their communities. We must constantly ensure that our programmes remain relevant to local needs and continue to create a real and lasting impact.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.