| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I strongly support new clause 12. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will accept the reasoned arguments about his new schedule. If his schedule were on the statute book, Euro 96 would not have been one of the listed events. It is important that we proceed as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
It is unfortunate that we even have to move and discuss a new clause like this. If the governing bodies of sport took their long-term duty seriously, we should not be in this position. Of course money is important, and of course we want to get more money into sport, but the short-termism of our sports governing bodies, in not worrying about the future of the sport so not encouraging young people to enter it, has meant that more and more of our sport is being changed and manipulated at the will of the people who run television.
I support Sky Television. I welcome what it has done for sport generally, but the balance is beginning to move too much in favour of those who have satellite television at the expense of others who do not but who want to see the jewels of our sporting heritage. The new clause proposes a check on our governing bodies. It will make them sit up and realise that they can no longer act in a vacuum, or assume that what they think is good for sport actually is.
The phrase "the property of Parliament" was used earlier in the debate. I think that sport is the property of the people. As Members of Parliament, we must be able to represent our constituents' point of view. The annual review affords us that opportunity. It is not too much to ask for this compromise. Conservative Members who may feel that we are trying to dictate terms must realise that sport matters enough for Parliament to take it seriously. If we are serious about the future of sport, I see no reason not to support the new clause.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
For the sake of good order I declare my interests as an adviser to Tyne Tees Television and as president of York City football club--not that I want to discuss channel 3 interests or second division football tonight.
The Rugby Football Union has displayed breathtaking timing. The contract that it has signed with BSkyB could not have come at a worse time for the other sporting bodies that are trying to put together a sensible
compromise solution to genuinely held concerns about the sale of sporting rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right: this is a dispute which the national rugby football unions need to resolve themselves. In any case, what has happened does not make the case for new clauses such as these.
I want to mention the interests of racing, speaking in my capacity as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee. Two of the eight listed events are horse races of international importance--the Derby at Epsom and the Grand National at Aintree. Both race courses are owned by the Racecourse Holdings Trust. With some sadness, it has accepted the amendment carried in another place, believing, however, that it has to some extent closed down its opportunities and undermined the value of the sale to terrestrial channels of both the Derby and the Grand National.
As in this House, so within racing there are differing views. Tonight I could construct a convincing argument for further legislative intervention. It is perhaps more difficult to construct an argument against it--except to say that we cannot for ever expect our sporting bodies and their sports to achieve international success while depriving those sports of the lucrative returns from the sale of television rights.
In the recent Friday debate--more leisurely than this one--we were concerned with where all the money goes. We need to insist, for instance, that the Premiership pushes more money down to the clubs in the lower divisions. Without the second and third divisions, and even the Vauxhall Conference, we will not win Euro 2000 or the World Cup in, say, 10 years' time.
The new clauses propose that the Secretary of State will have the power to increase the list in the future. What does that mean for four-year or five-year agreements? For example, I refer to the five-year agreement between the Derby and Channel 4. What about the other big race festivals, such as Cheltenham, Ascot and the August meeting at York? It will undermine the value of the rights of sale, even to terrestrial television.
Dr. John Cunningham:
The Secretary of State has the power to add events to the list now. The amendments circumscribe the power of the Secretary of State--she can do it now on her own, without consultation, without reference to the House of Commons, without consultation with the sporting bodies or the racing organisations. The hon. Member for Ryedale has got the point wrong: we are asking for a consultation process before any changes are made, not arbitrary changes in or out of the list.
Mr. Greenway:
I very much doubt that the Secretary of State has the power now to add an event to the list retrospectively or to do so in a way that would undermine a contract that is already entered into. If that were the case, it would solve the problem of the Rugby Football Union's sale of the five nations championships--all the Secretary of State would have to do is say, "I am adding this to the list, and the contract is null and void". That is not a sensible proposition.
As I have said, all hon. Members have strong views on this issue. I was a member of a delegation of Conservative Members who went to see the Minister in the early part of the discussions--we wanted to find a way through the
difficulty. I have found that the more I have looked into this, and the more that I have addressed the vexed issue of unbundling, the more I have come to the conclusion that legislation is not the solution. Despite what I said earlier about the poor timing of the Rugby Football Union, I believe that the national sporting bodies have made a genuine attempt through their voluntary codes.
We have before us a unique situation in which the Central Council of Physical Recreation has taken out a full page advertisement in The House Magazine so that hon. Members can see how seriously it views this situation. It is to the credit of the House and the way in which hon. Members on both sides have pursued this issue that it has brought the CCPR, on behalf of all sporting bodies, to the point where, for the first time, they are prepared to put in writing a code of practice and to police it. On balance, that is what the House should support. More legislation is not the solution.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
I do not declare an interest in this matter so much as an obsession. I have had an obsession with sport since I enjoyed the only access available to the 1948 Olympic games--the radio, or the wireless as it was called in those days. Access has a lot to do with the extent to which people become enthusiastic about sport and the extent to which they are persuaded to take up certain sports. I have an interest in a narrow sense in that I am a debenture holder of the Scottish Rugby Union at Murrayfield. That does not always bring pleasure--it occasionally brings a substantial amount of pain.
The powerful speeches of the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) underline just how extraordinary the decision of the Rugby Football Union is at this time. While it is not the oldest tournament in the world, it is the envy of many other sports, it has lasted a long time, it has given a great deal of pleasure to a large number of spectators and it has ensured the maintenance of the highest standards of proficiency in the sport of rugby football in the northern hemisphere. It seems pretty shortsighted to throw that away in favour of the possibility of a substantial financial return and a large fee paid by one form of television.
Mr. Lord:
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Rugby Union has put itself in an impossible position? Twelve months ago it did not--at least openly--pay the players anything, but now it is paying players throughout the sport, and especially those from senior clubs, large sums. As a consequence, each senior club wants £1 million a year in order to run its organisation. Did not the Rugby Union create the situation itself by deciding to go professional and, in my view, destroy the game?
Mr. Campbell:
The hon. Gentleman and I have had that debate before. I understand his desire to stick to what one might call the Corinthian values of rugby football. However, events in the southern hemisphere proceeded at a pace, there was a recognition of rugby players' commitment to the game and the time that they devoted to it and it was decided that they should be paid. We adhered to the Corinthian code in the northern hemisphere, while in the southern hemisphere substantial sums were being paid to players.
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield):
No we did not.
Mr. Campbell:
Things may have been different in parts of the country with which the hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I. However, the degree of commitment necessary from players in the Scottish international XV, who trained five or six days a week and spent weekend after weekend away from home for no financial reward, was such that it was not realistic to expect individuals to continue to make that sort of contribution. I think that professionalism was inevitable--and I speak from my experience in the sport with which I was intimately connected. Eventually the degree of commitment necessary becomes such that one cannot expect people to continue doing it for nothing. That may be regrettable, but they are the circumstances.
10.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |