| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Apr 2009 : Column 227WH—continued
I accept that these are challenging times for the pub and hospitality sector, as is the case for a number of sectors during the economic downturn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, the pub sector has been looked at long and hard by various organisations and committees in recent years. Most recently, the all-party beer group held an inquiry on community pubs and made recommendations covering a broad spectrum of issues extending across a number of Departments. The
Government’s response to that all-party group report is being finalised and will be available shortly. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members understand that I will not anticipate or pre-empt that response.
As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned, in 2004, the Trade and Industry Committee published a comprehensive report on pubcos and concluded that no one pubco held a dominant position in the market. The Committee referenced the fact that small brewers might be disadvantaged by the requirements set by pubcos and said that the cost of beer ties are usually balanced by the benefits available to tenants. It said that splitting the wholesaling and property functions of pubcos by removing the beer tie could lead to national brewers having a virtual monopoly on beer wholesaling, as before the beer orders. The Committee concluded that the British Beer and Pub Association code of practice should be updated.
The Committee made just one recommendation to Government, which was that a statutory code of practice for the sector should be imposed if the voluntary code was considered ineffective. The Government’s response was that we saw difficulties in imposing terms and conditions in an area subject to commercial arrangements and where existing legislation would not allow us to impose such a code. That view still holds, but I will reflect further on the ideas proposed today by hon. Members.
Hon. Members will know that ensuring that markets operate freely and, crucially, fairly is in general a matter for the independent competition authorities rather than Government, as the Enterprise Act 2002 removed competition decisions from Ministers and put them in the hands of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.
The relationship between pub-owning companies and their tied tenants has been investigated by the OFT and the European Commission. All investigations have concluded that tied lease agreements do not raise competition concerns. To date, the Commission and European courts have decided that agreements between pubcos and their tied tenants do not foreclose the market to competing brewers, as pub chains buy their beer from a number of different sources.
I have seen reports suggesting that no pubco has more than 15 per cent. of public house ownership in the UK. As some hon. Members will remember, the Trade and Industry Committee concluded that the costs of beer ties are usually balanced by benefits available to tenants. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, during his Adjournment debate in the House on 26 March, identified the fact that only 14 per cent. of closures are of pubs owned by any of the top six pubcos. I understand further that in evidence to the current investigation by the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, CAMRA said that the beer tie provides a low-cost entry to pub ownership, is beneficial for medium-sized family brewers, means that pubcos’ share in declining beer sales and prevents the domination of the market by the global brewers.
In that context, the Business and Enterprise Committee launched an inquiry to follow up the work of the Trade and Industry Committee. In revisiting the subject, the Committee is interested to know whether the conclusions from the 2004 report should stand. Hon. Members will recognise that the Government have yet to see the
conclusions in the Committee’s report. It would be a foolish Minister who rushed in before having seen the recommendations of the Department’s Select Committee.
Dr. Pugh: Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position? I totally accept that the tie passes all the usual competition hurdles, whether set by the EU or by the Competition Commission, but many Members around the Chamber have made a good case—a good prima facie case, anyway—for a degree of regulatory reform that may and probably will stop short of abolition of the tie. Is he saying that the Government’s current position is that they are not considering any regulatory reform that will affect the tie in any way?
Mr. Thomas: I said earlier that I would reflect on the comments made about the tie by the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members. The current position is the same as that set out in the Government’s response to the 2004 Trade and Industry Committee report, but a number of hon. Members have suggested ideas and, as I said, I will reflect on them.
I was asked a couple of specific questions about planning issues by the hon. Members for Leeds, North-West and for Huntingdon. Considering the time remaining, I may have to write to both hon. Members about restrictive covenants and planning policy. We are talking to the industry and will talk to other stakeholders before a consultation on the future of the Competition Act 1998 (Land Agreements Exclusion and Revocation) Order 2004, which deals with restrictive covenants. I will write to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West about the broader issue of planning law.
Listed Sporting Events
12.30 pm
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): It gives me great pleasure to introduce the debate. Lord Liverpool, who was the longest serving Prime Minister of the 19th century, referred to the people’s pleasure. This morning’s debates—the one about pubs that we have just concluded and this one about the concept of listed sporting events that are available to all—relate to two modern-day people’s pleasures.
There is a link between those two debates. I invite hon. Members to look forward to the World cup in South Africa next summer, which is the first ever football World cup to be held in the continent of Africa. Every pub up and down the land—even the most marginal ones—will be able to put a television in the corner, so that everyone can enjoy the World cup. Restaurants throughout London will be able to install televisions, and different nationalities in our great capital city will be able to watch the game. Schools up and down the country will be able to put a telly in the corner and, if there is a big match, the children will be allowed to watch it. Old people will be able to watch the football at coffee mornings and people will be able to watch it in their homes. Rich or poor, young or old—everyone will be able to watch the football World cup.
We take that for granted, but that is the case because of the concept of listed events. I remind hon. Members that that concept survived by one vote in a House of Lords debate in 1996. We should never take that concept for granted. It is now being reviewed by the Government. I welcome that review, which is something that I have called for in Westminster Hall debates over the years. However, it is possibly not just because I was so persuasive that the review is taking place—I would like to think so, but I doubt that is the case. There are other agendas, to which I want to draw the House’s attention.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The hon. Gentleman is right to link the two matters. Does he perhaps think that Sky’s charging policies for private members and social clubs for sporting events has forced the issue forward? I hope that the Government will react to that. I congratulate him—
Mr. Clive Betts (in the Chair): Order. If an hon. Member intervenes in a debate initiated by another hon. Member, it is customary that they seek permission beforehand from the hon. Member concerned, the Minister and the Chair to do so.
Bob Spink: Then I apologise, Mr. Betts.
Mr. Grogan: The issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is something that the Minister is taking up and might talk about in his closing remarks.
I wish to warn the House and, indeed, football supporters up and down the country, that FIFA—the governing body of world football—has made it perfectly clear to Ministers and the Football Association authorities that if we want to get the World cup in 2018, we have to amend our listed events legislation and that we have to substantially de-list the World cup. Ministers and the FA authorities are under pressure, which is one—although not the only—reason why the listed events review has been brought forward.
In recent weeks, two events have not exactly changed my life, but have opened my eyes. For the first—and probably the only—time in my life I was invited to the royal box at Wembley. As chairman of the all-party group on Ukraine, I sat where Her Majesty sometimes sits to present trophies, which is also where the Minister or the Secretary of State sometimes sit, depending on the nature of the trophy being given. I had the opportunity to talk to all sorts of officials from the FA that evening. Department for Culture, Media and Sport dignitaries and others were there, and it was clear that they all wanted a substantial amount of the World cup to be de-listed to sugar the pill for FIFA and to try to get it to award us the World cup in 2018. I will come back to some of the comments made that evening in a moment.
I also took part in my first Downing street webchat last week. We have to be careful when sending e-mails to Downing street these days, but I took the risk. The webchat was moderated by David Davies—an exemplary figure who is chairing the free-to-air listed events review. Incidentally, I think it is no accident that he has an FA background. I tried to intervene during the webchat debate. Someone asked what assurances could be given that the FIFA World cup would remain a listed event and David replied that the finals tournament of the FIFA World cup is on the current list and that the 2010 and 2014 World cups will be free to air. He also said that it is his job to review those and other events beyond those dates. Various people intervened. I thought that there were perhaps thousands of people on the Downing street webchat and that was why I was not able to get in. Eventually, the same name came back twice and I tried to make another intervention. I tried to ask David, “Surely, it would be a travesty if we got the 2018 World cup and most people in our country were not able to watch it, despite the amount of public money that has gone into many of our football grounds?” Eventually, I got a brief acknowledgement on the webchat, but I was not able to make an intervention.
However, I think that it is fairly clear where the FA stands. I predict that, unless we have a very strong listed events committee, some time later this year David Davies will present a report to Ministers that argues for the partial de-listing of the World cup; the only matches that would be left on the list would be those involving the home nations and perhaps the semi-finals and final. If that recommendation does go to Ministers, it will be a big test of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Is he really a man of the people? Is his heart with the real football fans of this country, as he tells us it is? Can we be confident that he will keep the World cup on free-to-air TV, despite all the pressures that will be on him? I hope that the answers to those questions in those circumstances will be, “Yes”. However, as I say, there would be many pressures on him.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): We already have the example of cricket. Some of us believe that the cricket authorities, because of the way that they have manipulated matters so that the game has gone on to satellite TV, have done irreparable damage to the grass roots of the game, such that many people no longer see cricket other than the odd highlights package. Is that not the real problem?
Mr. Grogan:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I shall come on to cricket in a moment, but it is absolutely certain that this year we will not see eight
million people viewing the Ashes. However exciting the Ashes will be, the average viewing figures are likely to be about 300,000 to 500,000 people, and as a result we will lose out as a nation.
I want to return briefly to the World cup. The types of arguments that I have mentioned are those that will be made, perhaps by David Davies and certainly to him and to Ministers. People and organisations, including the FA, will argue that we need to liberate the rights, if you like, to get the best possible price, because we need to allow FIFA to spend money to encourage people in Africa and elsewhere to take up football. Well, when we look at FIFA’s accounts, that argument is really not credible. Perhaps FIFA does not have the best governance in the world, if we look at their accounts.
For example, FIFA sold the television rights for the 2002 and 2006 World cups to an organisation called ISL Worldwide, which collapsed in 2001 with debts of £153 million. A liquidator was appointed and he discovered that, over the previous 20 years, £70 million had been paid out in kickbacks, including payments to FIFA officials. FIFA then sparked a criminal investigation of its own, after it claimed to have discovered that ISL had withheld £50 million of its money. The case collapsed on the final day, when a defence lawyer produced a secret memo purporting to reveal that FIFA officials had known that the money was missing. The court said that FIFA knew more than it had told investigators and that its claims were not credible.
Incidentally, FIFA has just spent £120 million on its headquarters in Zurich and it has spent £5 million on 20 football centres in Africa. I very much hope that Ministers will not come to us and tell us that we need to de-list most of the World cup because we need to support football in Africa. Ministers may come to us—the FA will certainly come to us—and say, “Well, surely not all the football World cup should be listed, because it is not all an event of national significance? Cameroon against North Korea, to pick one game, is not really a game that is of national significance.” However, if we look back at the history of the World cup, North Korea in 1966 made a big impression on world football and Cameroon in the 1980s and 1990s also made a big impression, as the first major representative of Africa.
We should not be little Englanders about the listed events. An event such as the football World cup should continue to be listed in its entirety. ITV tells us its average viewing figure in the last World cup was 5.7 million viewers and that was for all games, despite the fact that not many of them featured the home nations.
One of the things that the listed events review is considering is the criteria for listed events. I think that there are one or two additions that could be made to those criteria, which would support the full continued listing of the World cup. At the moment, the criteria include the fact that the event has a “special national resonance”. I think that the criteria should include events that have a special national or international “resonance”. The criteria go on to say that
“it is an event which serves to unite the nation, a shared point on the national calendar.”
Perhaps we should add that it is an event that serves to unite the nation and the world, and that it is a shared point on the national and international calendar. That would strengthen the case for the World cup being listed.
I should now like to turn to cricket, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). As he reminded us, this year is the Ashes series. In the last series, we lost the first test and won the second. We saw that iconic picture of Flintoff and Brett Lee hugging each other at the end of the game. We drew the third test and won the fourth. When we went to the Oval and all was at stake, the whole nation stopped because everyone could see the match on free-to-air TV. That will not be the case this year. The former chairman of the English Cricket Board, Lord McLaren, who did the gentleman’s deal with the then Secretary of State—now Lord Chris Smith—is disappointed because he expected some cricket to remain on free-to-air TV despite its de-listing. Although he says that he would not bring all Test match cricket back on to the A-list—the list that must be live on free-to-air TV—he has implied that he would bring back some of it. I suggest that the Ashes series is a prime candidate for listing.
The next two Ashes series have already been sold to BSkyB, which does a brilliant job covering cricket. The only problem is that many people in the country do not see it. If people cannot afford Sky TV, they will not be inspired to take up cricket because they will never see the sport. It is a national disappointment, if not a national tragedy, that because of the strength of the listed events legislation in Australia, the test matches this summer will be able to be watched live in Australia, but not here on free-to-air TV.
The ECB makes all sorts of claims about increased participation brought about by funding from the satellite deal. Clearly, there must be a balance; no one would dispute that. None the less, there is doubt about some of the ECB figures; it seems to be a matter of smoke and mirrors.
In a recent survey that asked south London youngsters what sport they would like to take up and see more facilities for, cricket came 21st. That reflects the fact that many people see no live cricket at all. The ECB gets more public money than any other sport. Possibly because Ministers have been defensive about the de-listing of cricket, they have not asked enough questions about whether enough money is going to the grass roots of the game. A lot of money is going to the counties, but, as I say, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors on the figures.
I should like to see the Ashes re-listed, and elements of the cricket World cup and the Twenty20 World cup. That would at least give a signal to the authorities that some cricket should be on free-to-air TV. There is a role for the terrestrial broadcasters, particularly the BBC, to step up to the mark if that happens and make credible bids. The BBC has a long tradition of covering a wide range of sports. I should also like to see it make some bid for county cricket. It is important that the BBC, as far as it is able, covers a full range of sports.
I move on to other sports that could be re-listed, additionally listed or put on to the A-list so long as there is a credible bid from terrestrial broadcasters. With regard to football, there is a case for listing the World cup qualifying matches and the European championship qualifying matches. The England home games are currently live on free-to-air TV, but there was controversy last year when many of the away games were not initially going to be on free-to-air TV. The
three other home nations—Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—have no live coverage now. If Scotland does not qualify for the World cup, the Scottish people will never see their national team on live free-to-air TV. We all hope that they qualify and that the home nations do well next year. As in Germany, France and Italy, there is a strong case for listing those qualifying matches.
The last day of the Ryder cup is another possibility as no golf is currently listed. Perhaps we could have the last day of the Open golf championships, as that is not currently on the A-list. There may be others. Some rugby fans have mentioned that we rarely see highlights coverage of the British Lions abroad. I am not sure whether highlights are available for the current series, but usually throughout most of our nation they are not. That is a candidate for B-listing.
In summary, I am an unapologetic enthusiast, as I think most in our nation—and I hope our Government—are for intervening in the sports market and ensuring that there are events to unite the nation and bring us all together. It is something that we all want to talk about, no matter what our economic circumstances are in life. In the new digital era, a lot of people will never be able to afford a subscription or pay TV. A subscription to Sky Sports costs well over £400. As MPs we are lucky—we can see Sky Sports in our offices. Many of us subscribe to it and it does a marvellous job. However, it does not offer universal access, and the principle of listed events should go beyond the digital switchover.
In Australia, people are having a similar debate. They have a more comprehensive list than us, which includes about 30 different events across a range of sports. They see the digital switchover as an opportunity as there will be far more channels that meet the criteria to show a listed event that can be seen by 95 per cent. of the nation. I hope that the first thing the review does is confirm the principle of listed events. In particular, I hope that it will defend those events that are already listed. I hope that the Government and David Davies will surprise me and unambiguously defend the whole World cup to be on terrestrial free-to-air TV, so that in 2018, even if the Secretary of State is not Prime Minister and in the royal box by that point, he will be able to watch it at home with his children or in the pub.
There are many debates about sport on television, but I hope that there will be a proper debate about the pay TV market and whether it should be liberalised with more players encouraged into the market. The House should not lose sight of the fact that many people will never be players in the pay TV market. Our nation is stronger for the fact that everybody can watch events such as the World cup, whatever their economic circumstances, and can be inspired and marvel at great talent. Long may that be the situation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |