| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. John Cunningham: The reality.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, that is the reality. It seems to me that there is a fundamental question whether we believe that the widest possible range of people should have access to special sporting events. It is correct to say that individual sports wish to maximise their access to resources. However, I want to be satisfied that those resources will be spent in sensible ways--the development for which people argue must be funded properly. The truth is--the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) is correct--that there is a degree of short-termism in the approach of many sporting bodies that are not willing to think beyond the immediate offer in a particular contract. In many respects, they are not mindful of the sport for which they presently have responsibility and of their obligations to maintain that heritage and to pass it on to succeeding generations.
There is no doubt that for a long time certain sports were inadequately rewarded. The fact that the BBC was the only broadcaster willing to buy sport meant that there was no proper market. In that sense, many sports did not receive a return on their product. However, that should not be a justification for creating circumstances in which a monopoly is ultimately produced through the operation of the market. If a sporting organisation--no doubt it is substantially generous at this stage--has a monopoly, who is to say that it will not exploit that monopoly again in due course?
Sport is the area in which the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations are able and willing to compete on financial terms. They are not queuing up to make "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility", or to make detailed documentaries, or to film all of Shakespeare, or to provide access to the finest opera or music. They have chosen sport. Because the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations can pay substantial sums, they believe that they will be able to take away from the BBC an important part of the service that the BBC offers. Of course, it is inevitable that the BBC will not be able to compete with the sums of money being offered by other organisations and it will have to consider other methods of funding. The BBC may be driven to introduce subscription and, as soon as that happens, the justification for the licence fee funding of broadcasting becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. So although we are anxious about sport and although the individual enthusiasm of hon. Members is reflected in what they say about sport, a longer-term implication lies behind those matters.
I have much sympathy with new clause 12. A period of 12 months is mentioned in subsection (3), and we can argue about whether the period should be one year or three years. But the thrust of the new clause should recommend itself to the House because it will provide a balance between the legitimate right of any sport to capitalise on its television potential and, at the same time, it will maintain the right of virtually universal access that has been part of the sporting heritage and tradition of the United Kingdom.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden):
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had a general debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. There has been no indulgence from the Chair. Everything has been in order, so far.
Sir Alan Haselhurst:
I am relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my words are therefore unlikely to incur your censure.
The debate has shown the House at its best, because we are united by our concern for sport and for the access of the public to sport. The issue is almost apolitical, and general concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If any political instincts intrude on my attitude to the subject, they suggest a minimalist approach; I do not approve of new clause 12 because of its over-prescriptive nature.
If I have a bias, it is to believe that the rights to sport belong to the sporting bodies. We might have views about whether the sporting bodies always conduct their affairs in ways of which we approve, but they might think that we do not always conduct ourselves in a way that they would approve as citizens. I am anxious not to go overboard in placing heavy regulations on the sporting bodies. I recognise the great public interest in the subject and we are all concerned that sport should be revived--we have been concerned that there has not been enough participation in it. We want more resources to go into sport, and one of the easiest ways in which that can be done is through the sale of broadcasting rights.
I have a special interest in cricket. I have the honour to be the secretary of the all-party group on cricket, although I do not speak for the group because we all have our individual opinions. I am also a member of the committee of Essex county cricket club, so I can express a view from that direction. I am concerned that the sport of cricket could be severely prejudiced if we hedge it about with too many restrictions. Cricket needs reviving in this country, and we are concerned about the amount of cricket played by young people in school. For the first time recently, cricket has had a glimpse of the amount of money that it might get, and it will be able to use the increased income from the most recent deal on broadcasting rights to the real good of the sport. All the evidence so far is that it wants to use that money sensibly. When it has an opportunity to gain more money through the sale of its broadcasting rights, it would be cruel of us to restrict that.
I happen to think that the cricket authorities might be the best people to judge how to get the balance right, and I am a little doubtful about whether we should second guess them. I should be satisfied to give the Secretary of State a reserve power in case something goes seriously wrong, but I should like the matter to be played out to see what kind of deals are done.
Ms Eagle:
Was the hon. Gentleman entirely happy with the coverage of the recent world cup on terrestrial television?
Sir Alan Haselhurst:
The hon. Lady betrays a misunderstanding of the matter. There is no way in which hon. Members can control what an overseas organisation does with the television rights to what it possesses. We could exercise no control over what the Indian and Pakistan boards happened to do with the television rights of the world cup in their countries. It is a common misconception. We accuse the British authorities of letting down viewers in this country because, apparently, we cannot get the rights to live, ball-by-ball coverage on terrestrial television here, but we can have no effect on that. We can simply claim to have some effect on what happens with the game as it is played in this country and how it is presented.
At this stage, we would be wiser to accept the work of the sporting authorities, who are signing up to the code of conduct. I instinctively prefer that approach, rather than being over-prescriptive. If they show that they cannot achieve a balance covering the interests of participants, spectators, viewers and listeners, the Secretary of State should have a residual power to intervene, but I urge the House not to go overboard in trying to tie the hands of the various authorities, as we would live to regret it.
Mr. Maxton:
I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) on one point: we should do as much as we can to encourage people to participate in sport. We have a duty to do so, because evidence shows that exercise is good for individuals' health; and if we improve individuals' health through their participation in sport, we improve the general health of the nation. I presume that we all want that.
Money spent on the development of sport does not, alone, encourage young people to participate in it. Seeing their sporting heroes on television is the major incentive. How many children do we now see on public tennis courts with tennis rackets in their hands because Wimbledon is on television? The whole House has been congratulating the English on how they have run Euro 96. How many kids are now out playing football?
What better case can be made for keeping our major sporting events on terrestrial television than Euro 96? As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said in Question Time this afternoon, 25 million people
were interested enough in football to watch the England-Germany game last Wednesday. Those figures cannot be matched by cable television or by satellite television. One tenth of that number would have been able to watch Euro 96 if it had been exclusive to satellite. If Euro 96 had been exclusive to satellite, many more people would have gone into pubs to watch it. That would have led to more drinking and thus to more trouble on the streets.
I shall quote briefly from a letter I have received--I am sure that other hon. Members have received it--from Tony Hallett, who is the secretary of what calls itself the Rugby Football Union. That is pretty insulting in itself because it is, of course, the English Rugby Football Union, not the Rugby Football Union. Mr. Hallett says:
Why should we not accept absolutely the argument that the sporting bodies have a right to sell their broadcasting rights where they wish and how they wish? The answer is this: an enormous amount of public money goes into sport. Money goes directly from government through Sports Council grants. Increasingly, money comes from the lottery, with which there is a five-year deal. So far, almost £200 million has gone from the lottery into all sport. Under the five-year deal, the total figure will be almost £1 billion. Does not that give us some right to say how sport should be run and who should be able to see it?
Large amounts come from local government in terms of playing fields given cheaply, changing rooms and coaching. Then there are coaching and sports facilities in schools. All that is public money. There is also an enormous number of people who give their time freely, or who pay subscriptions to play their sport. Surely with all that money going into sport, we as the representatives of the people who watch sport on television have some right to a say in how sport is shown on television. That seems to me to be a fairly straightforward case. That is why I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
There has been great emphasis on the fact that the five nations tournament is likely to disappear as a result of the rugby deal. That is deeply regrettable. The argument is not whether the five nations disappear--I hope that the Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the French will stand firm and play a four nations tournament rather than try to keep the five nations.
What is more important to rugby is the disappearance of rugby from the television screens of most of our people. Only 15 per cent. of viewers will be able to watch live rugby matches in this country. As the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, it is live rugby that people want to watch. They want live sport, not highlights or a recording of the event two hours later.
"We wish to be free to negotiate on our own behalf the best package for our game."
In the same letter, he claims that the agreement the union has reached with BSkyB will mean
"greater coverage of live rugby union games".
More matches might be shown live, but the audience will be considerably smaller.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |