It is pleasure to be under your tutelage this afternoon, Mr. Hancock. It is also a pleasure to talk about the Davies report and the rugby league challenge cup. Those of us in the rugby league community see the cup as extremely iconic, not only for rugby league, but for sport in general. It is important that we give the Minister and his team in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport some reasons why the rugby league challenge cup final should be on the A- list, and remain free to view for the UK public.

The report was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for the DCMS, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Interestingly, he was as surprised as the rest of us when it was concluded that the rugby league challenge cup should be delisted, and he put out a press release to that effect. I hope that the current Secretary of State will take note of that, and that he will talk to his predecessor and take his views on board.

The Secretary of State has indicated that there will be a 12-week consultation on this matter. I hope that the Minister will give us more detail and put on the record the way in which members of the public can have some input in the consultation, as it is not immediately clear—perhaps it would be helpful to have an e-mail address or whatever. One of the surprising things in the Davies report, and in the report by Frontier Economics which went with it, was the paucity of public input in the consultation.

The Davies report asked Frontier Economics to do a background report, which is a detailed read that gives a lot of background information about how people view sport on television, and whether or not they have access to TV sport on satellite and so on for which they pay, or on a free-to-view service. It is an impressive document, which the Davies report, quite properly, draws on.

I have also read the Davies report, which is interesting to say the least. However, one of the things that it did not do well, was interview sports bodies. There were interviews and so on, but when representatives from rugby league came along, only three out of the eight members of the Davies committee were at the interview. We understand that people who do those kinds of things do so on a voluntary basis and have other interests. Nevertheless, when looking at something this important, it is not good to have less than half of the people available. That was not true only for the rugby league presentation. I understand that a presentation was also made by the England and Wales Cricket Board, and that only four members of the committee were present. There are some difficulties regarding the legitimacy of the report and its conclusions when only a small number of people were present.

Paragraph 156 of the Davies report states:

“The Panel accepted that sports governing bodies should be best placed to know what was in the best interests of their sport now and for the future.”

If the members of the committee think that the best thing to do is to talk to the sports bodies, it is incumbent on them to turn up, listen to and question any points that are made.

Another point that is made in the report is about the access that people in this country have to pay TV. There is not a lot of difference by social class—roughly 50 per cent. of people in all social classes have access to pay TV, give or take 5 per cent. either way. However, among people whose income is less than £11,500, there is a big drop, and the figure for pay TV goes down to below 15 per cent. on average. The other important factor is that although there is not much variation between different age groups, if we look at those aged 75 or over, less than 30 per cent. have access to pay TV. Taking the rugby league challenge cup final out of free-to-air viewing would exclude a lot of people who are currently able to watch that iconic sporting event.

The report provides some detail about the differences in the viewing figures for the challenge cup, which is free to air, and those for the grand final, which is on Sky TV. I have no objection to Sky TV. It does a superb job and has improved the way in which television portrays our sport, and other sports. It has raised the profile of the sport, and developed the ability of TV to make sporting events more iconic, available and interesting for the viewers. This is not an attack on Sky TV—far from it; it does an extremely good job. However, the number of people who watched the challenge cup final on free-to-air TV was six times the number who watched the grand final. Anybody who knows rugby league knows that the grand final is the epitome and pinnacle of the rugby league season. It is when the two best teams play each other—knock-out competitions tend to be a little more open, and depend on the way in which the balls come out of the hat. If only a sixth of those who watch the challenge cup can watch the grand final, that tells us something about the issue.

Frontier Economics has tried to analyse the effects on the sport, but it largely looks at the financial impact. It does not look at the real issues that people in rugby league want to know about. That misses the point, not only for rugby league but for all sports—the super league, the Ashes, Wimbledon, and so on. All those events are at the very pinnacle of sport, but below them, there is a huge base of people who play or have played sport, and who are interested in it. That is an important point, which I shall return to later.

As I said, the committee consulted the public. Surprisingly, only 148 people responded. I say “surprisingly”, but I am not all that surprised. I did not know that the public were being asked, as I might have put in a recommendation or said something about the issue. However, there were only 148 responses, which is very poor. That is why it is important that in his response, the Minister gives us some idea of how people can respond to the consultation process that he will undertake.

Let us look at some of the details. Sixty-two people responded to question 12, which asked what the most important issue was for them. Of those respondents, 12 people—the largest group—said that affordability was important. That goes back to my earlier point about those people on low incomes and the over-75s. We risk excluding a lot of those people, and that is what most of the respondents were concerned about.

In question 9b, the majority of those who responded said that they wanted no change whatsoever to the listing process. When asked whether the rugby league challenge cup final should be moved from the A-list to the B-list, no respondents wanted that to happen. When asked whether some events should be moved from the B-list to the A-list, so that they would be shown on free-to-air TV, four people said that the rugby league challenge cup should be shown in full, rather than as highlights. They were saying that they wanted to see games all the way through, not just the highlights of games. Of the 136 people who responded to question 9d, only three—or 2.2 per cent.—said that the challenge cup should be moved. Not only would none of us be elected on 2.2 per cent., but none of us would retain our deposits.

The committee went on to consider what the criteria should say. Paragraph 138 says that there should be some amendments to the criteria. Paragraph 154 also refers to what they should look like. I will not read them all out, but paragraph 138 states that a relevant event should be

“a pre-eminent national or international event in sport”,

should involve

“the national team or national representatives in the sport concerned”

and should

“be likely to command a large television audience.”

Paragraph 154 states that the panel concluded that

“the ‘other factors’ in the current criteria that the Secretary of State may take into account—including the potential impact of listing on the income to a sport—should not strictly form part of the criteria for listing, but were matters for the Secretary of State to the extent that it is appropriate for him to take them into account”.

I am sure that that sounded good in the original double Dutch, but it does give some indication that the Secretary of State has a little leeway.

There is no definition in the Davies report of what the criteria that were set out mean in practice. That is important. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall just give what I think are the major reasons why the rugby league challenge cup should be included and why the Secretary of State should not take account of the Davies report’s recommendations.

The most important reason is the community nature of our sport. I do not think that there is another professional sport anywhere in the UK with the community base that rugby league has. It goes right the way down. All of us here could name teams in our areas whose players play rugby league from the age of five right the way through. Although that is also the case in other sports, there is a difference. I remember that in the 1980s and ’90s, we had Steve Hampton, Joe Lydon, Shaun Edwards and Andy Gregory playing for what was probably the greatest rugby league team around—not just then, but before or since. They played for a Wigan team and were all born and brought up in Wigan. If we look at the current Wigan team, we see Sam Tomkins, Joel Tomkins, Gareth Hock and so on. Right the way through that Wigan team are players who were born and brought up in Wigan, and that would be the same in Leeds, Bradford and Widnes. All those players come right the way through, and it is very important that we have that community that feeds up into the challenge cup final.

rose—

Stephen Twigg.

Derek Twigg, even.

Sorry. The ball went through my hands there, Mr. Twigg.

Can I put this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner)? He is making an excellent and very powerful speech. It is a disgrace even to suggest the change that we are discussing. He has made strong arguments about that. At a time when we have seen criticism of footballers, cheating and everything else, here we have a sport whose players are known for their courage, tenacity, skills and, above all, honesty. Is that not exactly the sort of sport that we should be projecting to a much wider audience?

I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend has probably pinched about three seconds of my speech, but that is neither here nor there because I fully agree with him. The point that he makes is very important. In rugby league, most of the players come from quite deprived backgrounds. Many of them do not have the family discipline that perhaps exists in other families, but going into rugby league gives them that discipline. It gives them the personal satisfaction of achieving excellence in speed, skill, ball-handling ability and so on. Also, if someone makes a mistake and a penalty is awarded against them, it is 10 metres, and that is 10 metres that the forwards have to get back and they do not like it. They tell their colleagues, “You stop giving away penalties.” If someone is sent off or sin-binned, the whole team get battered for that. I think that my hon. Friend’s point was about that peer group discipline.

Equally, the respect that the officials receive in rugby league is paramount. That applies to rugby union as well; we should be fair about that. In rugby, nobody questions the decisions of the officials, which is absolutely right. That self-discipline comes from playing the game; people have an understanding of how to talk to officials and so on. I remember going to two games at the Millennium stadium. One was Wigan Athletic against Manchester United in the Carling cup. There was segregation. There were police all over the place. There was no trouble, as it happened; nevertheless, there was that anticipation. I then went to watch Wigan Warriors playing St. Helens. There were no police about. There was no segregation. Alcohol was freely available. It was a great atmosphere and a great day. The difference between the two comes from the community spirit that flows all the way through the game of rugby. It is important that the rugby league challenge cup is on free-to-air television so that we can project that to the nation. We can do that by having the schools, which provide the usual opener to our game, there and we can show what our game can do for the individual, for sport and for rugby league. It is important that when the Secretary of State finishes his consultation—we shall ensure that he gets many more than the 148 people responding in the first instance—he takes that on board and ensures that the rugby league challenge cup final is free to air so that everybody can see it.

rose—

Can I ask you, Mr. Hoyle, to be fair and to respect the referee’s decision to give the Minister time to give you the good news that I am sure he will in this event? If you could keep your comments to a minimum, the Minister will have enough time to respond to any points that you want to make and to those of your colleagues.

Thank you for that advice, Mr. Hancock. Obviously, in rugby league, we have a thing called a yellow card, so if I get two yellow cards, I will know that I have to sit down. Allowing for that, may I first say thank you to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner)? He has put forward the reasons for his argument extremely eloquently. He has explained that the case is so strong that there can be no other decision than keeping rugby league in the A-list. That is what this is about. As he set out, it seems absurd that a committee sits with less than 50 per cent. attendance to make a decision to take rugby league off the A-list—off free-to-air television. I would have thought that common sense would have prevailed on the idea that the greatest sport in the world, with one of the finest cup finals to be played at Wembley, could not be on free-to-view television in the future. That is unacceptable. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, rocking back on his chair, recognises the sport and how great the game is. It will be a crying shame if suddenly the Davies report is accepted. We need the decision to be reversed, and reversed quickly. We need to lift that uncertainty.

Of course, Sky has done a lot for rugby league. I have to say that I was the only person at the rugby league meeting in Wigan who did not vote for Sky. I hold my hands up and say that at that meeting, when Sky came with the big cheque book, I was the only one who stood up and did not accept the Sky money, because my commitment is to free-to-view television.

My hon. Friend is right when he says that Sky has done a lot for rugby league. Does he not really believe, though, that Sky has done a lot for Sky? That is what this debate is about. It wants to do even more for Sky by taking this cup final away. We should not allow that.

That is a bit of a wet ball, but back to you, Mr. Hoyle.

I totally agree. My differences with Sky in relation to rugby league were many years ago. The one thing that I have always been committed to is the game of rugby league. I will always remain strongly supportive of the game at both amateur and professional level. This is about balance. Sky is doing the championship games; it is doing the premiership and the super league. Every week, it is rolling out good matches and good coverage. However, when it comes to the cup final, the exciting part, bringing teams together, we must ensure that the finest game in the world is available on free-to-view television.

I cannot express that passion enough to the Minister. We must get that message across. Rugby league is one big family, whether we are talking about the members of the family in Australia or the national game of Papua New Guinea. Wherever it is in the world, rugby league is united on one thing: it is a great sport, a family sport, a sport to which we can all be committed. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater by making the wrong decision. We educate people in the south by showing the game live from Wembley, so do not allow that to go. The finest experience that I have had this season has been that of my father walking out at Wembley, leading Warrington out and coming back to Warrington with the challenge cup. There is no finer experience that I could have. Chorley Panthers had the Tomkins brothers there, so we are a good feeder club to Wigan, and long may that continue. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan for ensuring that this debate is taking place, and that we get the right decision. I can see how serious the matter is when I look behind the Minister and see that he has four officials sitting there writing, recognising that rugby league must remain. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Hoyle, for a spirited contribution. I now give the floor to the Minister—follow that.

I will do my best, Mr. Hancock. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I hope that we will not be interrupted by a vote, but I slightly fear that we might.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate and on his magnificent contribution. He is like a shaggy bearded lion of the rugby league world, and is ably assisted in his exhortations by his hon. Friends from the rest of the north-west.

And Yorkshire and the north-east.

Indeed. I am minded to note that the last time there was a listed events review was in 1998, which was, I think, also the last time that the rugby league challenge cup final was won by Wigan Warriors. No, that was the super league grand final win.

I begin by reaffirming the Government’s view that we recognise the importance of ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to enjoy our most important sporting events on free-to-air TV. We all recognise that sport is a central part of the national fabric, of our national identity, and of what makes up the kind of society we are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said, nothing can quite replicate the excitement and the passion that can be generated by our great sporting events. Only last year, we saw the passion that surrounded British participants in the Olympics and the Paralympics, next year we will have the World cup in South Africa, and in 2012 we will have the Olympics in London. We want to ensure—there will be no doubt about it—that those kinds of national and centrally important sporting events—

May I remind the Minister that in 2013 we will have the rugby league world cup as well?

I did not mention that myself only because I wanted to give one of the hon. Gentlemen the opportunity to intervene and put it on the record.

I have said why we have listed events. The decision to review the listed events was based on a range of factors, partly on the recognition that with the development of digital technologies and the changes to the broadcasting environment there are far more channels and far more ways to watch sporting events. In addition, subscription’s place in the broadcasting economy is completely different from what it was. To take account of all those developments, the Government set up an independent advisory panel to review the free-to-air events regime and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Does the Minister not agree that less than 50 per cent. of the panel turning up to hear the evidence represents a failure?

Before I could make such a judgment, I would need more evidence than the second-hand anecdotes we have had about two meetings—

But what if what I said was correct?

We will look at the evidence if that ever becomes an issue, but it is not something that we should get hung up on. Let me return to the details that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan asked for, of the review process and how it has gone.

David Davies chaired the panel and was asked to review three areas: the principle of having a list, the criteria against which events are listed, and the content of any list. It was recognised that the widest possible range of views needed to be taken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said, the panel commissioned research. It undertook a public consultation from 8 April to 20 July, and wrote to 187 sporting, media, broadcasting, viewer and other organisations, inviting them to participate, and some of those organisations had meeting with members of the panel. Not every member of the panel attended every meeting, as has been noted, but I do not doubt that there will have been consistency of membership. Others of those organisations made submissions in writing. Perhaps not every member on every occasion, but the panel as an entity visited the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, arranged a joint meeting of the all-party media and sports groups, and generally put itself about and talked to as many people as possible.

The Minister will not know this, but it would be interesting to find out how many of the panel have been to a challenge cup final. I wonder whether the Minister himself has been to one. All of us who go and see the very large crowd at that fantastic occasion simply cannot understand the decision. We also think that there is a blind spot. The Minister probably does not realise that Leeds Rhinos regularly have the biggest average crowds of any rugby club in the country. Rugby is a popular spectator sport, but that is not being reflected.

The hon. Gentleman makes that point very well. I cannot speak for the proclivities of the panel. Having grown up in a Welsh family, I was taught early the other way, in rugby terms, and then went to the only grammar school in Birmingham where they played only football, not rugby. So, no, I have never been to a rugby league challenge cup final, although if the hon. Gentleman is inviting me, I would love to go.

The panel reached clear conclusions as to the criterion that should be used in determining whether an event should be listed—the major event test. I am conscious that I have only three minutes left, so I will not read out the definition of a major event but will move on to the Secretary of State’s provisional conclusions.

The Secretary of State provisionally—I do not just emphasise that word with my voice; it is underlined on the piece of paper—concluded that he was minded to recommend that the recommendations be accepted. Those recommendations were, first, that there should in principle be a list; secondly, that the major event test should be a key criterion in drawing up the list; and thirdly, to accept the view that the events identified passed the major event test. The Secretary of State considers that the panel has come forward with a persuasive set of reasons, and he agrees that as many people as possible should have as much access as possible to events of major importance. We are particularly concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan raised this concern—about the ability of people on a low income to access subscriber services. They might otherwise be excluded from these nationally important events. We believe that listed events are part of our national identity, but we are also clear that the panel expressed no view and took no account of the impact or consequences on the sport or sporting body of the listing, stating that it considered that such matters were for the Secretary of State to take into account.

Our provisional conclusion is, therefore, that the final decision should take account of the possible impacts—not looked at by the report—that such listing might have on the sport or the event in question. We therefore consider that the major event test needs to be accompanied by an impact assessment. That will involve considering any matters relating to the impacts of listing that are drawn to the Secretary of State’s attention, then assessing whether listing would have a disproportionate impact on the interests of those adversely affected by it—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is willing me on. Having reached his provisional conclusions, the Secretary of State is required to carry out a statutory consultation with the broadcasting authorities in line with the Broadcasting Act 1996. I am trying to conclude as quickly as possible before the time runs out. There is a consultation that runs until March. As part of that consultation—

Order. I am sorry Minister, but despite playing a blinder you have been beaten by the clock.

We now move on to the next debate. However, I point out to the Minister and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that we expect Divisions in the House at any moment. I leave it to you to decide whether you want come back between votes—I understand that there will a series of them. That would make for a disjointed debate, but we could suspend the sitting for an appropriate period.