Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 129)
TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2005
RT HON
RICHARD CABORN,
MP
Q120 Chairman: Minister, we have
received two submissions from the broadcasters on a confidential
basis which are for the use of this Committee only. Would you
be willing to make available the letter to us on the same basis?
Mr Caborn: Yes.
Q121 Paul Farrelly: The ECB kept
the Department informed of the negotiations that were going on
and the Department lodged no objection. There is no question of
bad faith on either side, no deals were broken, no assurances
and that was the hard-headed decision that was taken. Whether
you call it a policy change or a tacit consent, those are moot
points. In response to Mike Hall's question there was an indication
that correspondence had been sent between the Department to the
ECB putting that sort of lack of objection in writing. Is that
the case?
Mr Caborn: No. The only piece
of correspondence is the one that I have referred to of 23 June
1998. After that there has been no correspondence to the best
of my knowledge. There have been telephone calls, there have been
discussions in my office, but there has been no correspondence
as such between the ECB and my Department to the best of my knowledge.
Q122 Paul Farrelly: If I were Sky's
lawyers I might in some circumstances want, for example, a letter
of comfort to comfort them over the status of any agreement they
may have reached given the assurances that were previously given.
Are there any such letters that have gone between the Department
and the ECB or Sky or any of their agents or intermediaries?
Mr Caborn: Not that has crossed
my desk.
Q123 Paul Farrelly: If you were to
review your files and find any, would you make them available
to the Committee?
Mr Caborn: Absolutely. I have
no reason not to. I think the more information we get out into
the public domain the better. My view is that if I had been able
to I would have put this in the public domain as well, but the
ECB has confidential information in it and that is fine.
Q124 Paul Farrelly: In view of the
hard-headed decisions that have been taken, is it therefore a
possibility, as the world changes, that when the review in 2008/09
of listed events comes up we may just simply get rid of the listed
events framework altogether?
Mr Caborn: No, I do not think
so. Obviously it serves its purpose. It is right to judge that
in three or four years' time the world will be different in media
terms in that we will be on digital and there will be access to
all sorts of programmes available too. So it is very difficult
to see four years in front what is going to be available and there
is no doubt, as the report in 1998 said, cricket is the most difficult
one to schedule for television, particularly Test cricket which
is very difficult to schedule for some of the major channels.
That could well change because of the number of channels which
will be available free-to-air on digital. So it is difficult to
look into the future and say what exactly is there for an agreement.
Q125 Paul Farrelly: So what you are
saying is there is no possibility of the listed events framework
being jettisoned in any review, although individual events might
be affected?
Mr Caborn: What the Secretary
of State said in 1998-99 was we will review it, and it is not
just about cricket but obviously the whole question of listings
and whether we need to have a review of that in the light of what
will be a whole new situation in terms of broadcasting—kids
get it on their mobile phones now, you get texts through, there
is a whole new way of communicating. That has been part of the
discussions in Europe over this last period with the Premier Division
and DG Competition and it is very difficult to try to throw these
things forward and say what technology will be around and fit
a commercial deal around it.
Q126 Paul Farrelly: So there is a
possibility that we might not need a listed framework or any listed
events whatsoever?
Mr Caborn: There might not be.
My personal thought is that I would think we would need some listings
because I think free-to-air is important for certain events and
I think we need to keep the A listing there. It is always a balance,
is it not, against the income for sport. One of the other spin-offs
from the success of the Test is that we have just announced today—Sport
England and ourselves—further investment into cricket of
some £2 million into what has been a very successful Chance
to shine, and we are looking at a fund of somewhere around
about £50 million into that. I think it is because of the
success of others that now the commercial side is prepared to
look at how they can invest in grassroots sport—a bit like
they do with the Football Foundation. The Football Foundation
has just got £30 million off Barclays, £10 million a
year over the next three years, to invest into grassroots sport
along with the investment that football and the Government put
into that. I am hoping we can grow on the back of all this success
that type of fund for investment into grassroots sport. If we
do, that will really ensure the future of cricket and that is
where we have got to invest.
Q127 Adam Price: A month before Sky
won the bid, the Chief Executive of Sky, James Murdoch, met with
the Secretary of State. Did they seek a verbal assurance at that
meeting that the Government would not raise any objection to the
potential loss of cricket from free-to-air?
Mr Caborn: I was not there so
I do not know. I do not know what was discussed at that meeting
at all. I would doubt it because the discussions I have had with
my Secretary of State have been ones where we said to the ECB
we would like to see obviously some live coverage of Tests on
television. This was not just one negotiation, I think it was
a whole series of negotiations, particularly between Channel 4
and the ECB, who have been a fantastic partner. There is no doubt
about that, with HOWZAT!, they have brought cricket right
to the grassroots, used the media to get that excitement into
cricket, it has been absolutely first class and I pay credit to
Channel 4. But at the end of the day, after a number of approaches
to Channel 4, I understand, and a number of discussions which
took place in that negotiation, they could not come up and match
what Sky put on the table, but that is a normal commercial deal,
there is nothing new about that. The judgment has to be made then,
do you stop that deal or put pressure on it, knowing the consequences
are that you will not deliver the other four points which Lord
MacLaurin said he was going to deliver, ie greater investment
in the international side, greater investment in the grassroots,
greater investment in the Academy and women's cricket.
Q128 Adam Price: The televising of
cricket was one of the main agenda items for that meeting, could
we see the minutes of that meeting?
Mr Caborn: You had better put
an FOI down. I do not know whether there is any confidential information
on those minutes. I hear what you say and if it can be in camera
then I will speak to my Secretary of State and the officials in
my Department and if we can let you have copies of those, Mr Whittingdale,
we will in the usual way.
Q129 Mr Sanders: Surely we have a
right to ask to see this evidence? This is a specific question
over contact between the Department and someone from Sky, presumably
a member of the Murdoch family, and what was discussed in relation
to exclusivity with regard to broadcasting Text cricket in the
United Kingdom.
Mr Caborn: I am trying to say
(a) I was not privy to that meeting and (b) I have not seen any
minutes of that meeting. I hear what has been said by the Committee
and, as we always are in my Department, although I say it myself,
we will be as open as we possibly can because both of us agree
the Select Committees are a very good instrument inside government
and we will try and assist that wherever we can. I will take that
request back and if we can give it in camera to you, that
is what we will do.
Chairman: Thank you. Minister, we will now reflect
on what we have heard from you and previous witnesses and indeed
make some recommendations to you. Thank you for your time.
| 
