If she will make a statement on the impact of the Olympic bid on grass-roots sport. [151920]

We decided to bid for the Olympics for two reasons: first, as an expression of our ambition for sport and for Britain to be given the chance to host the greatest sports event in the world; and secondly because the process of bidding will enthuse and inspire young people to participate in sport at every level.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will know that one of the most lasting long-term benefits of hosting any Olympics is its impact on grass-roots sports, not only through the development of infrastructure, but through providing champions, such as the excellent Lyn "The Leap" Davies from Nant-y-moel in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. However, although it is quite understandable that the majority of the infrastructure development will take place in the south-east, how will she spread the benefits for our youngsters in Wales and elsewhere to inspire them to go on to future Olympics beyond 2012?

I thank my hon. Friend for both his question and his interest in and concern about the matter. This is one of the most important challenges facing my Department and the Government, and we are seeking to rise to it in two ways: first, through unprecedented levels of investment in new facilities—nearly £700 million for England alone and £750 million from the New Opportunities Fund if one includes Wales and Scotland—and also by ensuring that by 2007–08, every child will have the opportunity to undertake at least two hours of high-quality physical education and sport every week. That is expressed as a target, but we are seeking first to invest in facilities, and secondly, to ensure that young people are motivated to take part in sport to help to deliver champions for 2012.

The Secretary of State is well aware that Conservative Members strongly support the Olympic bid, but does she recognise that it would be possible to raise even more money for grass-roots sport if the new Olympic lottery game were not to start in 2005—when, as we hope, we win the bid—as her Government have suggested, but contrarily, as we have suggested, to start so that it coincides with the Athens Olympics when the Olympics will be at the height of public interest? The Minister for Sport and Tourism has accepted that it would be possible under International Olympic Committee rules to start an Olympic lottery to coincide with this year's Athens Olympics. That would raise more money for sport, so will she continue to consider that?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we will no doubt return to that matter during the business of the House later this afternoon. I shall make it absolutely clear why we have taken our decision: first, as he will be aware, because the IOC will simply not permit an Olympic lottery to be mounted on any premature assumption that a specific city will host the games; and secondly, because I have given undertakings to the many good causes that will suffer some reduction in funds as a result of the Olympic lottery that that will not happen until and unless—as we all hope—London wins the bid to stage the Olympics. That decision will be announced in 2005.

I am sure that the whole House agrees with the Secretary of State about the way in which a London 2012 Olympics could inspire a new generation of young athletes. Will she tell the House what she will do to ensure that the 2012 games will be clean and free of drugs? How are we going to get drugs out of sport so that our young people know that the role models who they follow are good, clean role models?

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Of course, the issue is of great concern to not only the IOC, but, more generally, the governing bodies of sport. We can say with great pride that our contribution to the World Anti-Doping Agency is widely recognised by the IOC and, indeed, I hope that that will be seen as a strength when our bid is considered. I place on record my appreciation for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism in ensuring that the UK Government maintain leadership on that important matter.

Whether she seeks to spend an equivalent sum per head of population in England on tourism promotion as is spent in other parts of the UK. [151921]

I am satisfied that the current level of funding is producing excellent results, particularly in England. For the first time for many years, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are now promoting England domestically. Last November, VisitBritain launched its domestic marketing strategy for England, which has a strong emphasis on the public-private partnership. Building on the success of last autumn's enjoy England campaign has given us good results indeed.

Will the Minister confirm that Government expenditure on tourism promotion is 24p per head of population for England per year, but that the equivalent figure for Scotland is £5.50 a head and in Wales it is £8.10? Does he think that that is in any way reasonable or fair? What would he say to a west country tourism operator who sees tourists and tourism jobs going across to neighbouring Wales simply because of the large state subsidy, much of which is paid for by English taxpayers?

Not to be too pedantic, the expenditure is actually 21p in England and 570p in Scotland—[Interruption.] I said "not to be too pedantic". Output is relevant as well. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a good Conservative and wants good value for money. We spend that 21p in England and receive £208 per head spend from inbound visitors. In Scotland, the spend from visitors is £159 per head and in Wales it is £86 per head. It is real value for money when 21p brings in £208 in England and 570p brings in £159 in Scotland. As a very good Conservative, the right hon. Gentleman should welcome those figures.

I certainly praise the value for money we receive in England for our tourism spend and press the case for the south-west to get even more value for money by getting more money.

The school year is a matter for local authorities.

If the Minister is correct that the Government are giving more importance to the amount of money spent by individuals when they visit areas, will he consider ways in which he could help the peak district, which gets more than 20 million visitors a year who, on average, spend very little? That is not good for the rural industries in the area.

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and serious point: how can we get tourists, especially those who come to see day attractions, to stop overnight? It is a good question. The industry is working hard on that. VisitBritain and VisitEngland are also working to that end. The major visitor attractions are trying not only to get people to stay overnight, but to extend the tourist year. A lot is going on. We have regional development agencies and I hope that tourism is now seen as a major part of the economic development of the regions.

My right hon. Friend mentions the trade deficit in tourism. Is he concerned about the depreciation of the dollar and the continuing high parity of the pound, which must be having a serious effect on tourism? Has he made an assessment of that and will he look into it to see what can be done about it?

We always make a continuous assessment. In terms of tourists from north America, it is not so much the dollar that matters. We are working hard to get those visitors back into the UK, but it is about confidence. VisitBritain's work and its million visitor campaign in north America has paid dividends, but the parity of the dollar and the pound is not that important at this stage for north American visitors.

According to Tourism Alliance, 85 per cent. of overseas visitors to the UK come to England, but we heard the derisory and paltry figures that are spent on promoting England In view of the balance of payments deficit in tourism, to which the Minister alluded, does he agree that we should invest more, not less, in promoting England as a destination?

It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman finished in that tone, because there has been nothing of that sort involving the regional development agencies. When the agencies were set up, there was the negative argument that region would be set against region, but that has not been the reality: on the contrary, the agencies have worked together. There have been many examples of such collaboration over the past three to four years.

Is it not true that we need to get the tourist associations from Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland working far more closely together? The vast majority of international visitors coming to the UK visit only London. If they leave this country without having seen the beauties of Scotland or Wales, we have not served them very well.

We all work together through VisitBritain, which is a UK-wide organisation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up. We also meet the Tourism Ministers of the devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend has developed that joint structure much more firmly and has brought the Tourism Alliance together so that, for the first time, the industry speaks with one voice In that sense, we are trying to bring the UK tourism industry together. I hope that we are working with a much stronger partnership because we want to tackle some of the structural weaknesses in the industry.

If she will make a statement on rural radio stations. [151922]

Independent radio in the UK is licensed and regulated by Ofcom. Both Ofcom and the Government value the important contribution that all independent radio stations, including those in rural areas, make to a local community.

The Minister will be aware that rural radio stations play a vital part in all communities. However, we have a problem in Exmoor, where the local radio station cannot get its signal out across the area. That is partly because it is in a national park—an area of outstanding natural beauty. The station cannot afford to erect hidden trees or trees disguised as masts. [Laughter.] Will the Minister provide a solution so that that local radio station can transmit to its entire area, namely Exmoor?

I might again disappoint the hon. Gentleman tremendously by saying that at the start of a busy week, and having just experienced one, the issue has not occupied a large amount of my thinking time.

In the Cotswolds, we can see the wood for the trees, but we have a slightly different problem in as much as reception, which depends upon the hills, is often poor. Many of my constituents complain that as much as they would like to listen to local radio, they are frequently prevented from doing so if they are on the wrong side of the hill. Will my right hon. Friend examine this issue, especially when licences are being granted, to ensure that coverage is as full as possible?

I will not look at the issue, but I am sure that Ofcom will do so because it is its responsibility—it is not the responsibility of government. Previously, we were talking about the beauty of the hills, but in this instance it seems that the hills are causing the problem. There is not a great deal that can be done about that.

We on the Conservative Benches share the enthusiasm for local radio, and acknowledge that most rural radio stations do not always have access to the large staff or the regulatory or legal expertise of bigger groups. In the light of that, will Ministers do their utmost to limit regulation of those stations to a necessary minimum and, in particular, will they exercise severe self-restraint before invoking any overriding test of public interest?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we do not want bureaucracy in small radio stations—many local radio stations are small—especially the new community radio stations that will start to operate after the pilot. However, we need to get the balance right. We want to safeguard the public interest and make sure that any local radio station operates within the legislative framework. The Communications Act 2003 affords us an opportunity to do so, but I take the hon. Gentleman's question seriously. It is appropriate that it is asked from time to time so that Ofcom and the Government make sure that they do not go over the top.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is Groundhog day?

So was yesterday.

Is that right? Given that a large part of the BBC licence fee is spent on rural radio, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the Government have no plans to privatise the BBC so that we do not repeat that sterile argument today, tomorrow, next week and next month?

There is of course no question of our privatising the BBC. I congratulate my hon. Friend on combining his question with a celebration of Groundhog day—another thing on which I did not reflect very much over the weekend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has continually said that there is absolutely no case for privatising the BBC, and I am happy to repeat that at the Dispatch Box.

What representations she has received from the operators of charity lotteries with regard to the draft Gambling Bill; and if she will make a statement. [151923]

Most representations from charity lotteries are about the distinction between lotteries and commercial prize competitions. We believe the Bill contains legal tests that make that distinction clear. Representations have also been made on the proposed 24-hour rule, which will control faster draws. We are reflecting on that rule and the representations at the moment.

I thank the Minister for his answer. While the whole House will acknowledge the marvellous work done by the national lottery, does he agree that private lotteries such as those operated by hospices have an important part to play? Does he accept that the current draft Gambling Bill presents serious obstacles to the success of those hospice lotteries, on which those hospices depend to look after people in our communities? Has he received representations from groups such as the Acorn Children's hospice lottery and the St. Giles hospice lottery, which—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

I got the gist of the question, Mr. Speaker, and I have some sympathy with such groups. When we were considering the Gambling Bill we had to clarify the role of the national lottery, probably the most successful lottery in the world, all of the proceeds of which go to good causes. We made a political decision to protect that role. We were also mindful of other charitable lotteries, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. Indeed, we tried to be fair and responded to all their questions about stakes, prize money and roll overs, and that is reflected in the Gambling Bill. As I have said, we tried to protect the role of lotteries in total, and draw a distinction between them and prize competitions. I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), is meeting representatives from the lotteries tomorrow. We will look very carefully at the results of that pre-legislative scrutiny, as we want to protect the lotteries, and make a clear distinction between them and prize competitions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to question the Minister further on this matter as there is much at stake for charitable lotteries, many of which, as hon. Members know, do excellent work in their communities. The charitable lotteries are concerned about the Department's proposals because, compared with prize competitions, they must be registered, submit returns, and they must limit their prize money and stake. In addition, their participants must be over 16 and they cannot sell tickets in public kiosks. None of those things is included in regulations for prize competitions, and the charitable sector would like to know why. Given the fact that there has been a quarter drop in the amount of money given to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product, will the Minister promise to look again at creating a level playing field for the commercial and charitable sectors?

The answer is yes, but there are two distinct issues. Lotteries for charity are one thing. We make it clear that the national lottery, which is for good causes, should continue and should not be undermined. I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that the charities do not support the steps taken by the Department. The Bill will remove the £2 cap, allow roll overs and allow the sale of tickets by machines. The top prize money has been doubled, as the charities requested. The maximum price of tickets has been doubled to £2 and the Bill will remove that cap altogether. However, there is still a problem, which is why we look to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to make a clear distinction between lotteries and prize competitions. That is where the real commercial market exists. I give an assurance that we will take account of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's views.

What engagements she has carried out in relation to the sport of cycle racing in the past 12 months; what funds were made available to the sport; and what steps are being taken to encourage participation by school children in the sport. [151924]

On yer bike.

Yes—very apt. I met representatives of cycling with my hon. Friend on 1 December last year to discuss major events in the sport. I confirmed the Government's support for cycling on that occasion, and I am delighted to announce today that funding is being made available to the sport to improve links between schools and amateur clubs, under the club links programme. That will apply to another 14 sports, which we will announce later today.

As a passionate cyclist, I often feel that my sport is undervalued and under-recognised, yet it achieved a fantastic result of 13 medals at the Commonwealth games in Manchester. There is a vast voluntary sector comprising 1,200 clubs across every community and neighbourhood. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pay particular attention to cycling and to the development of support, where possible, for that valuable voluntary sector, which is represented in every constituency?

Yes. We support club-to-school links, in which cycling is involved, and we support the sport's national governing body, the national coaching task force and the new coaching facility. We support the modernisation of 22 governing bodies, in which cycling is involved. Through the Millennium Commission, £43 million was invested in the first phase of the national cycling network. There is real commitment not just to the sport. but to cycling for leisure and to getting more young people active in cycling, which we consider important for health reasons.

I thank the Minister for his personal interest in the sport of cycling. Can he assure me that some of the additional money he mentioned will find its way into cycle speedway—a largely unrepresented aspect of cycling, which is a minority sport anyway? If my right hon. Friend would like to see cycle speedway first-hand, I extend to him an invitation to come to the Colchester Stars cycle speedway club.

I shall look in my diary and see when I can take up that invitation. It is for the governing bodies to make representations to Sport England, as I have no doubt they will do. Following its modernisation, I pay tribute to the governing body of cycling, which did a first-class job and is fitting into the development of sports colleges and promoting cycling across the spectrum. The investment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is important, as it tends to bring young people into the sport in pursuit of their icons, and that is what drives sport forward.

If she will make a statement on the funding of English Heritage. [151925]

English Heritage received Government funding of £115.4 million in the financial year 2002–03. The allocation for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 is £121.7 million in each year. In addition, it received £1.5 million this year to support its modernisation programme.

Granted the need for financial economy in English Heritage, is the Minister aware of the crass and incompetent way in which it has gone about drastically reducing public access to Marble Hill house in my constituency, one of the leading English historic homes, and the anger that that has created among local supporters who have spent years generating money for it? Will she therefore intervene to ask for a postponement of that decision until there can be proper public consultation and consideration of other options?

I understand the strength of feeling of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, because I know that this is a very important issue in his constituency. English Heritage is an organisation at arm's length from the Government and it is not for Ministers to tell it to stop carrying out its proper business either because hon. Members raise a matter in the House or because there is local opposition. English Heritage must look at the management of its properties, and the proposal of which the hon. Gentleman speaks is in response to the quinquennial review. Where I would share with him a concern is in the local heartache that such difficult decisions can cause, and from what I have heard, the consultation may not have been as effective as it might have been. In that respect, I shall ensure that my view is passed back, but I emphasise that that is not with a view to stopping English Heritage carrying out its proper business.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that world-class visitor attractions, such as Whitby abbey, which are managed by English Heritage, should be working not only to attract visitors from outside the region but with local communities so that they can understand their heritage and culture? Will she look closely, with English Heritage, to see whether local schemes might allow easier and regular access for local people to make use of these world-class facilities?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that must be a priority for English Heritage. Interestingly, the savings that are being made, as in the example that we have just heard of in Richmond, are in part being used to fund outreach workers who will ensure greater access to and a greater understanding of our heritage of beautiful buildings throughout the country. My hon. Friend may very well find in the coming years that there are people in his locality who can take forward the sort of work to which he refers.

Bearing in mind the enormous sum of money brought into this country every year by tourism, will the Minister acknowledge that the amount spent by English Heritage is very modest, and will she talk to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see what he can do about increasing it in the Budget?

I would never say no if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offered more money for English Heritage or any other area of our Department's activities, but a considerable amount of money is spent, and a £6 million increase in that expenditure is guaranteed for each of the next three years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is also incumbent on English Heritage to ensure that that money is spent to best effect, and that is why I support its work in considering the portfolio of buildings. However, I agree that this is an area of activity where however many millions or even billions of pounds were put in, the money could always be put to good and effective use. As ever, we will try to secure more resources for our Department, but we should acknowledge that English Heritage has more money now and that that will continue to be the case in each of the next two years.

What plans she has to increase the number of qualified sports coaches employed at a local level. [151927]

My Department is working closely with Sport England to create 3,000 full and part-time community sports coaches by 2006. They will work across a range of schools, clubs and local authorities to ensure that the maximum number of young people benefit from good quality coaching.

When I visited an athletics camp in Norfolk park in my constituency in the summer, the athletics development worker told me that he had more funding for the six weeks of the holiday than he did for the rest of the year. Will my right hon. Friend look into this and also consider the need to provide funds where possible for youngsters from poorer areas for transport to venues to pursue their sports and for equipment?

The summer splash programmes were highly successful and we must put such programmes on to a more sustainable basis. That is but one part of trying to invest strategically and make sustainable Britain's sports infrastructure. That is why, through the sports colleges, we are committed to two hours of quality physical activity or sport for every child every week from the ages of five to 16. I have already mentioned the club-to-school link. Seventy per cent. of our young people do not continue to participate in an active sport when they leave school. We are dealing with the structural weaknesses in the club structure and in coaching. We will not make the system sustainable by addressing them singly—it has to be done in a much more strategic and focused way.

The Minister rightly points to the 3,000 people who will benefit from the coach match scheme, but does he recognise that about 1.5 million volunteers who are assisting in the development of sport will not benefit from it? To assist them, will he renew his energies in working with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that the sports governing bodies coaching award schemes meet the criteria for funding from the Learning and Skills Council?

Yes. Although we are investing in sport in general, the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the particular area of coaching. That is why we have not only invested in 3,000 coaches, but are looking for the first time at making coaching a profession in its own right. To that end, Sports Coach UK has developed five levels of coaching. All the governing bodies have come together to sign up to that, which is a welcome first. Those involved in sport are making a concerted effort collectively to ensure that its systems and structures are much more sustainable. Where we can invest in those areas, we want to continue to do so.

Having a large number of qualified sports coaches may do some good, but without a decent—or safe—infrastructure, the work that they do will come to nothing. On Friday, I came across the case of Nunnery Wood athletics track in Worcester, which, having been promised 50 per cent. match funding under the community athletics refurbishment programme to make its track safe, was told by Sport England that it is now to get less than 20 per cent. match funding. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at that case and to try to ensure that we have decent tracks and infrastructure, as well as a large number of qualified sports coaches?

If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will do so. He should take note of the fact that Sport England is trying, with our support, to develop multisport clubs to arrest the figure of 70 per cent. of young people who do not continue sport when they leave school. Those clubs will have the facilities and coaching that are necessary to ensure that the governing bodies and local club structures can work together much more effectively. Young people are more likely to stay in sport if they are given access to a range of sports, rather than a single sport. We need a cultural change in how we deliver sport.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his proposals put even more pressure on local authority budgets to provide coaches at a time when several swimming pools in north Yorkshire and elsewhere are coming under threat because of the amount of money that they need? The funds from Sport England are simply not enough. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to relieve local authorities' budgets?

That is true, and we are working with local authorities in that regard. Changes are taking place in our society and in our communities as regards sports facilities. There are now more swimming pools in this country than there have been for many years, many of which are in the private sector. We have to develop a structure with the various governing bodies, including those for swimming. Ofsted uses swimming as one of the benchmarks by which it measures schools' activity levels. We are working with swimming associations and local authorities to ensure that the facilities are there for the C, D and E groups.

As my right hon. Friend knows, I warmly welcome the introduction of coaches, especially at grass-roots level. However, will he ensure that that is only the first stage? As he rightly said, we need to ensure that coaches who would not necessarily benefit from the project now realise that there is a form of career progression in coaching, which is a much-maligned profession that has not been especially well supported in the past. Will he ensure that the scheme is a good example of moving forward and that, after a successful 12 to 24 months, he will take it back to the Exchequer to show that we can deliver when we put Exchequer funding into sports projects?

Very much so. I know that my hon. Friend has been active in such matters for many years. We have a foreign coach for nearly all our national sports, including soccer, and we could be condemned for that because it says much about the lack of professionalism in the structure of coaching. Our young people—and, indeed, our coaches—are as good as any in the world. We are trying to ensure that there is proper investment and that we have a proper career structure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) goes on about it. When the Tories were in power, they did nothing about the coaching profession. Since we have come to power, we have developed with the governing bodies a proper structure and a profession in which young people can get sustainable employment. We will deliver national games with national coaches from the United Kingdom.

What assessment she has made of the projected economic benefits of a successful London Olympic bid. [151928]

We commissioned a cost-benefit analysis from Ove Arup before deciding to endorse the decision to bid to host the games in London in 2012. Staging the games would bring general economic benefits to Britain through business opportunities and potential tourism benefits through increased visitors. It will specifically benefit one of our most deprived parts of London.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. Although I fully endorse the London Olympic bid, I respectfully remind her that we need to bring the people of Scotland and Wales with us because £1.3 billion in lottery funding will be used to prop up the bid. May I remind her that there is excellent sailing in Wales, we are shortly to host the Ryder cup and the millennium stadium is probably the best in Europe?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and I greatly appreciate the spirit of cross-party support for the London bid, which is an important element of our strength. I take the hon. Gentleman's points. We hope that we will stage the games; their impact and ability to benefit every part of the UK will be an important test of their success.

One of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the Olympics should be the local community in which they will be sited in the Lea valley, which is one of the most deprived communities in the country. What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to involve that community in the development of the bid to ensure that when we do win the Olympics it will benefit?

My hon. Friend is right. Community support for the Olympics will be one of the important tests that the International Olympic Committee will apply. It is not only an important test for the committee, but for us as a Government. Involvement, regeneration, an estimated 9,000 new jobs to the area and the legacy of social housing will bring benefits to the part of London about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.

I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that a key component of the bid is the decision to site the yachting events at Weymouth and Portland harbour. It is a natural harbour and the obvious location. However, does she share my concern that Powergen has submitted planning applications to build a wind farm on the breakwater of Portland harbour? That will obviously have a detrimental effect on sailing and the Olympic bid. Does she agree that unless the whole country—including business—gets behind the bid, there will be no economic benefit?

I will resist the temptation to express a view on planning matters, which are rightly a matter for the local authority. London 2012 has made the decision about the location of the yachting facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who is not currently in his place, like the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), has been a powerful advocate for the location. It will be an excellent venue.

If she will discuss with Sport England the use of Crawley's new leisure facilities as part of the Olympic games 2012 bid. [151930]

The venues proposed for the games were announced by the bidding company, London 2012, on 16 January, the day after the technical bid was submitted to the International Olympic Committee. They were chosen by 2012 to best fit the needs of the athletes and Olympic sports. If we win the bid, sporting facilities across the country will be used by national teams for training camps, and at that time Sport England will look at the range of facilities available.

We in Crawley are desperate to share what will be first-class facilities, to be completed next year. We would very much like to be able to show the world that the Olympic bid is not just about London, but about the ability for the rest of the country to contribute. For us it will be the icing on the cake.

I could not agree more about the importance of ensuring that the benefits of the Olympics spread throughout the United Kingdom, including Crawley. That is why we have the biggest-ever programme of investment in sporting facilities. Last year, I announced a further £100 million of lottery money to fund the Active England programme, so that we could meet our dual objectives of winning the Olympic bid and hosting the games in London, and increasing participation in sport. We want to inspire young people throughout the country, including Crawley, to become champions.