---

Davies Review

Absolutely, and the listed events regime allows that to happen. For the Ashes, we are in effect talking about 2017 because the 2013 series has already been sold. However, that seems to be the obvious solution, and there are precedents for it. This year and in previous years, Sky and the BBC have both shown the FA cup final live, and in the future that will be true of ESPN and ITV. In all cases, only some of the rights of any governing body will be listed. For cricket, the vast majority of test matches, one-day internationals and so on will be up for sale to the highest bidder, should the ECB so wish. It is unlikely that Sky and other subscription broadcasters will walk away from the table, particularly if there is the potential to simulcast the Ashes series in 2017, which is some way away. There are also the national football teams of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a great pity that until Scotland qualifies for a European championship or a World cup, someone could grow up in Scotland and never see their national team on free-to-air TV. It is important to recognise that the Davies proposals suggest that qualifying matches be listed only in the home nation concerned. Football authorities in Scotland would still be able to sell the rights to the rest of the United Kingdom, and there would probably be competitive bidding, particularly between the BBC and ITV. With digital expansion, many more channels will meet the qualifying criteria of availability to 95 per cent. of the population. Once we have digital switchover, instead of five channels qualifying for those criteria, there could well be 10, 15 or more. Most governing bodies receive public money from the lottery and the Sports Council to fund grass-roots sport and other activities. That is explicitly recognised in the Government's consultation document, which states that""the Secretary of State…considers that a further factor that may be of relevance in the balance, is the extent…to which the sport in question has received direct or indirect public funding"." Between 2009 and 2013, Sport England will give £37 million to cricket and £30 million to rugby union. The best figure I could find regarding how much money is raised for grass-roots cricket from broadcasting contracts was around £13 million. That figure came from a study by Deloitte for BSkyB. The amounts of money that go in from broadcasting and from the public purse are not dissimilar. It is worth remembering that £1.5 million of national lottery funding was invested in the new Welsh rugby union centre of excellence, which opened last month. SportScotland gave the Scottish Football Association £1.4 million last year. If the governing bodies believe in an entirely free market approach, why are they receiving public money? They cannot have it both ways. If hard-pressed taxpayers and lottery players are funding sports, should they not be able to see some of the events on free-to-air TV? There is another interesting phrase in the Government's consultation document:""The Secretary of State also provisionally considers that a properly managed sporting body is likely to wish to have a diversified income source, in particular because of the recognised vagaries of broadcasting revenue streams."" According to Giles Clarke's written evidence to the Davies committee, 80 per cent. of cricket's income is from broadcasting revenue, double that of the next nearest sport, which I think is Scottish football where about 40 per cent. of income is derived from broadcasting. Clearly, there is an imbalance, which cricket needs to address. There is some controversy over the figures for participation in cricket. Cricketing bodies argue that participation has increased in recent years, but research for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Sport England suggests that if there has been an increase it has been marginal compared with sports such as cycling and athletics, which have much greater exposure on free-to-air TV. It is likely that sponsorship will be higher with free-to-air exposure. On 13 October 2009, The Times reported that Kevin Peake, the marketing director of npower, had hinted that having the Ashes back on free-to-air television might persuade the company to continue sponsorship beyond its present deal, which expires in 2011. A recent report from Deloitte, commissioned by BSkyB and entitled, "The impact of broadcasting on sports in the UK", noted that for rugby union, a key benefit of the Six Nations free-to-air strategy was the impact on sponsorship revenue. Exposure on free-to-air TV could have various effects. I have a number of further points. I urge the Government to make a decision swiftly after the consultation period ends in March. As I understand it, this is an area where a Minister can decide; there is no further parliamentary process and it is something that can be wrapped up before the general election. I hope that free-to-air broadcasters look carefully at the new list, if there is one. There is a responsibility, particularly on the BBC, to look at the list that Parliament has decided on and do everything possible to ensure that events on the A-list are shown on free-to-air TV. Finally, the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, always told the parliamentary Labour party that it was through the little things in government that a difference could be made. This is not a matter of life and death, or peace and war, but—as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) pointed out—it affects the quality of life of many people. Many people have spent their lives volunteering as coaches, for example, in a variety of sports, and they would like to spend their retirement being able to watch the great national and international events on television. It is impossible to calculate the impact of sport on young people in inspiring them to take up cricket, rugby, football or athletics. When the Olympic games are on free-to-air TV—I am told that the BBC wants to show every event live in 2012—there will be a huge impact on the next generation in encouraging them to take up sport. That impact cannot be measured, but we know that it is of tremendous value to our society.