§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent providers of subscription broadcast services from acquiring sole rights to live broadcast of sporting events.Why is Sky television prepared to pay £1.1 billion for three years' broadcast rights of premier league football? Why has Sky made a joint arrangement with the BBC for rights to FA cup matches and England internationals for three years which is worth £345 million? The answer is, of course, terribly simple: it wants to be a monopoly supplier of live football to British fans. Soccer fans have nowhere else to go. Like sports fans everywhere, they are prepared to pay large sums to watch their sporting heroes. Sky's sporting package now costs over £300 a year—three times the licence fee.I know how irrational soccer fans can be because I am just as irrational in making decisions about how much money I am prepared to spend to watch cricket. It may be that English cricket, soccer and rugby fans are a breed apart. We will still be coming back for more, however England performs. The sad fact is that Sky knows that and is earning a fortune from the monopoly position that the House is enabling it to enjoy. The time has come to protect the interests of the consumer who is at the mercy of a monopoly supplier.
As I have implied, I have an interest to declare. I am a consumer of Sky's sporting package, and the Bill was prompted by that personal experience. It seemed to me, when dealing with Sky to establish or repair the service, that the arrangements were wholly inflexible and designed to suit its interests, and not mine. Sky gave appointment days rather than times for engineers, and made dates to suit its schedule, rather than mine—and that was after waiting ages on the telephone and in addition to the unfailing ability of the service to collapse when one really wanted to watch it.
It is clear that I am not alone. The Scottish Sunday Mail consumer affairs columnist wrote in April:
If I had to nominate the worst company in Scotland for customer service, the dubious honour would go to Sky Television. By a mile.He recounts tales of people being overcharged, the Sky digital system not working, technical bungles and lamentable customer service, and complaints about delayed installations, engineers not turning up on agreed dates, extra installation fees and mistaken disconnections.One correspondent successfully arranged to have the engineer turn up on her day off work. She said:
We waited all day. When I phoned Sky, they told me it had all been cancelled but couldn't tell me why. Surely this is no way to treat new customers? I would like to be connected because they still have my £80. But after six months, I don't know what will happen.Surely, she could take her custom elsewhere—but, in effect, she cannot. The product—live English cricket, premier league soccer, live home rugby internationals—is Sky's, and Sky's alone. It can be obtained via ONdigital, but the price will be the same or higher than that charged to Sky's customers. However, people should not expect Sky to tell them that, even in response to a direct question when they telephone Sky's customer services.157 Millions of British people have proved to be such enthusiastic sports fans that they will pay the subscriptions to watch those events live. Sky alone has 8.6 million subscribers, and the number is rising fast. That represents subscription income of about £3 billion a year. Our legislation has put fans at the mercy of a monopoly. That monopoly has the potential to exploit the interest and enthusiasm of those fans for its own gain. Without competition, the monopoly is exercising its power, as shown in the price that it demands and the often rotten customer service that it delivers.
The Bill is a vehicle to protect consumers from exploitation. It is a limited measure, in which it is acknowledged that a variety of interests have to be balanced. The owners of the rights to the sports have a right to try to maximise their income. There is a national interest in ensuring access to such great sporting events as part of the glue of common experience that holds a nation together. There is also a national interest in ensuring that sporting opportunities are developed for all. Incidentally, the owners of the sporting rights believe that the voluntary code of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which involves investing at least 5 per cent. of the revenue from the broadcasting rights into grass roots sports, discharges that responsibility—but I do not; that target is feeble.
The viewers also have interests, which were acknowledged when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was considered in Committee. The then Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, lain Sproat, said:
it is no use saying, "We completely disregard viewers' interests. We shall allow whoever has the most money to buy up all the sports and to show them to the 18 per cent. of people who have cable or satellite." A balance has to be struck.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 564.]My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) took a leading role in trying to protect viewers' interests then, and I am grateful to him for his support in this effort to improve their lot. I am delighted that he and hon. Members from both sides of the House agree that we got the balance wrong in 1996.The revolutionary rise of satellite, cable and digital multi-channel television has brought exciting opportunities. Benefits have already flowed from the competition between terrestrial broadcasters and the satellite broadcaster. There has been a substantial increase in sports coverage in terms of transmission time, the type of sport and the variety and quality of coverage, but the deck is now stacked heavily against the terrestrial broadcasters and the pockets of the viewing public.
158 My Bill would build on the framework of the 1996 Act; it would add another dimension of competition, which would protect viewers' interests and further enhance the quality of coverage. It would do that by abolishing monopoly rights to broadcast listed events by subscription broadcasters. It would introduce horizontal competition in the broadcasting of those events, as well as vertical competition to secure rights to broadcast them live.
My Bill would ensure that unless a category A broadcaster—that is, those channels to which access is universal and free—has the rights to broadcast a listed event live, at least two different subscription broadcasters must have the rights to broadcast the major listed sporting events live. Those paying subscription charges for satellite television have the right to expect some competition and to have at least some ability to shop around for the leading sporting events.
Cricket test matches, the cricket world cup, the open golf championship, the Ryder cup, non-finals play at Wimbledon, the rugby world cup, the six nations rugby tournament—which involves the home countries—the Commonwealth games and the world athletics championships could all be prised from terrestrial live transmission and placed with a monopoly subscription supplier, yet they are already listed as events meriting access for the wider public.
English football is the biggest television sport on the planet and the premiership is at its heart. I believe that premiership football should be subject to the competition and choice that my Bill would provide, so I would like that popular championship to be added to the group B list. However, under the Bill, that would remain a matter for the Secretary of State. All that the Bill seeks to achieve is a choice for enthusiastic sports viewers. It is time to protect the public from a monopoly supplier.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Tony Wright.