Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson]

Yes, I will congratulate Somerset. As a Gloucestershire fan, I can tell the room that I was a member at Somerset as a student. It was an excellent deal, and we used to travel from Weston-super-Mare to sit in the ground at Taunton. I spent many fun days there. It is a pity that Somerset triumphed over Gloucestershire this summer, but we will have to look past that.

Let us start with the good news about the Hundred. Although the debate is sometimes shrill and the suggestion is that it has been a total disaster, there have been some good points to the Hundred. It is pretty much the only high-profile cricket available on traditional free-to-air television, although some of the one-day internationals are on free to air too. The model has undeniably helped to fund the wider sport with new income. It has promoted the women’s game and there is more income for disabled cricket as well. The sale of franchises has brought new investment, which has been shared among the traditional counties. That success is to be welcomed, but it has not come without cost—I know that cost is acknowledged in the sport.

Even as somebody who is open-minded, I feel somewhat alienated by the Hundred. There is no team competing in the Hundred that represents my town, my county, or indeed the entire west region. For those who have suggested that the Welsh Fire is the west’s team, I beg to differ. I suspect Welsh cricket fans will be pleased to hear me say that I am not going to attend Sophia Gardens to support the Welsh Fire any time soon.

The creation of the Hundred means four-day county cricket has been pushed to the peripheries of the season, with August reserved for the short form of the game, although this year the amazing end to the final England-India test did just creep into the start of August, into the summer holiday period. As a knock-on effect, it is argued by many in the game that time and player availability for county championship cricket, which is crucial for test match preparation, has been greatly cut back. It is worrying to see the bedrock of the sport being pushed to the margins in that way. The fans who attend their county grounds and many of those involved in the administration of cricket at all levels could be forgiven for feeling overlooked and ignored. I have heard from many of those people.

What of the impact on the choices forced on test match players who deserve opportunities for time in the middle? What about the impact on the One-Day cup, which will never gather as much attention in August as the Hundred, despite serving up some absolutely brilliant cricket?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that another problem with the lack of four-day county cricket during the August period is that it is pushed to the margins, which impacts on batting development for future test players, as they are playing in the colder conditions of the early season, and inhibits the development of spin bowlers, who struggle at that time of year? We are perhaps inhibiting some player development in both batting and bowling for our future test stars.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points that have been rehearsed by cricket commentators over the last few years. I believe we have to bear that point in mind, and I may come on to it a little later.

It is no secret that this jumble of the calendar has profound consequences. As I said at the beginning, the ECB is doing the right thing by looking for new audiences, increased participation and more cricket on television. It might argue that participation is increasing as a result of the Hundred and the investment brought about by deals with subscription channels for test matches and other forms of cricket. Indeed, there is clear evidence that watching sport leads to increased participation and more money flowing into the game. The ECB reported a 61% increase in amateur cricket club membership following England’s victory at the 2019 world cup. Sadly, however, these days only a handful of free-to-air cricket matches are available each year in the traditional media, and county club cricket takes a variable approach to broadcast.

We should consider the wider consequences of the situation. It is a jumbled calendar with multiple different formats that are confusing to many and a lack of free-to-air broadcast. That cumulative impact risks alienating existing fans while reducing the number of younger people engaging with different forms of the game that are not the short-form Hundred, and making it harder for our test team to thrive. It also puts at risk the long-term sustainability of the county game.

Peter Matthews, chair of Gloucestershire county cricket club, told me:

“Cricket needs to be played at a time when the next generation can be encouraged to go. If this isn’t the case, it will continue to be watched by retired folk and will not grow a new audience. This means that weekends and school holidays are important. Right now, there is very little county cricket in the school holidays, other than ‘The Hundred’ (only at eight venues) and the One Day Cup. Non-hosts have a total of four days home cricket at the height of summer. This cannot be helpful commercially or for developing the next generation of cricket lovers.”

That is a warning from the chair of a club that is doing a lot of good work with the ECB to make cricket more accessible for all through the Gloucestershire cricket talent pathway.

That warning comes as state school cricket continues to suffer decline, bringing about the opposite of the ECB’s aim to increase participation. Peter also told me about the difficulties presented to those counties that retain much-loved out-ground festivals. The Cheltenham cricket festival is the world’s longest-running out-ground festival, having started in 1872. These out-ground festivals bring cricket closer to communities and should be encouraged, but they risk falling victim to ever-higher running costs and an overcrowded cricket calendar.

The Liberal Democrats believe in giving sport back to the fans, which is why we are calling on the Government, the ECB and others to act. We favour taking the more televised fixtures out from behind paywalls. We favour boosting participation by investing in grassroots facilities—I know the ECB is doing that with new indoor domes. We favour supporting community sports clubs too. While the Government clearly cannot interfere in the governance of sport, and I am not suggesting that they should, the nation’s shared interest in cricket should provide Ministers and Members with an important opportunity to engages with the ECB and all others in cricket authority about options that lower barriers to participation, including discussions about the cricket calendar.

Finally, we should consider whether the apparent commercial success of the Hundred might have been achieved by other means. Could the T20 Blast have been adapted to bring new revenues and audiences? Will it be adapted like that in future? Could the Blast and the Hundred be combined or tweaked in a way that protects the traditional forms of the game while retaining new audiences, perhaps with some cricket broadcast via a free-to-air model? The Hundred came about after a well-meaning discussion about participation and audiences, but the challenges that cricket faces as a sport are nothing new. As David “Bumble” Lloyd recently told the excellent “Sports Agents” podcast,

“the game has been dying since I started in 1963.”

That game has constantly adapted to survive. Those with longer memories will recall the fierce debate when limited-overs cricket was introduced in the first place, but at least those formats took the existing pattern of play, making it easier for fans of traditional cricket to understand what was going on. If we can properly balance the cricketing schedule to bring county cricket back into focus, the game can protect its local links and cricket will continue to thrive. We must ask whether the long-term prosperity of the game, the counties and the England team is best served by the continuation of the Hundred in its current form—that is, distinct from the continuation of the Hundred at all.

As part of the discussion we must of course focus on the test game, or we put at risk exactly the sort of moments that cricket fans cherish the most: Shane Warne’s ball of the century, Graham Thorpe batting in the dark in Karachi, the heroics of Chris Woakes coming out to bat with one arm in a sling, the 2019 Headingley test match and my favourite, the 2005 Ashes series—I was there for the day when we won at the Oval. Without those kind of moments, cricket ceases to be the special game it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I start by placing on record my membership of the all-party parliamentary group for cricket. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on bringing this important debate. Although I share his love of the long-form game as by far superior, I disagree slightly on the Hundred, which I recognise has introduced an impossibly packed schedule. When I can find time to attend a Hundred match, I am struck by how accessible to families—girls as well as boys—that format has made cricket. That is a big difference I have noticed in the crowds that turn up to watch the Hundred.

I add my support to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) about the importance of widening access to young people and lower-income families. Sadly, we are long past the days of finding our most talented fast bowlers by sending the coach down the pit. As much as we would celebrate the achievements of Harold Larwood, those days have sadly gone. We need to find a way to bring more young people from diverse backgrounds into this wonderful game.

I have a confession: I do not play, nor have I ever played, cricket. I did not benefit from growing up in a first-class county or a family of cricket enthusiasts. My love of the game came entirely from being able to watch it on free-to-air broadcasting. From Richie Benaud’s dulcet tones, gently breaking over the fading chords of “Soul Limbo”, to lazy Sunday afternoons spent watching the John Player league on BBC2, televised cricket lit a lifelong love of a game with silly fielding positions and glorious cover drives.

When cricket is accessible, without the barrier of subscription fees, it becomes more than a sport; it becomes a shared experience. In the 2019 cricket world cup final, free-to-air broadcasting drew millions of viewers and, I believe, inspired the next generation of Nat Sciver-Brunts and Harry Brooks and, to echo the point, those from more diverse and lower-income backgrounds, I hope.

Free-to-air coverage also helps grassroots clubs, such as Lanercost, Carlisle, Rockcliffe, Scotby and Wetheral in my constituency of Carlisle and north Cumbria, not necessarily a county associated with heady summer days spent watching cricket. That club cricket creates the important pipeline of talent and passion that sustains cricket at every single level. In short, free-to-air broadcasting grows the game of cricket, widens access, sparks dreams and strengthens participation.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is now 20 years since the last televised Test series—the greatest Test series of all time—and that since then participation has gradually declined? Is that not clearly an indication that fewer people are being exposed to the joys of this fantastic game?

[Ms Minns]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member. It cannot be denied that participation shrank in that period. We also have to look at how accessible our schools are in making cricket available to our young people. Lastly, I invite all hon. Members to join me in placing on record our very best wishes to the England women for next month’s ODI World Cup.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Driving around my beautiful constituency, it is hard to tell that the area played such a pivotal role in the second world war. Only one active military base remains on the site of the old RAF Driffield at Kelleythorpe, which is now used by cadets and occasionally for other training. Back in the 1940s, the countryside of East Yorkshire was littered with airfields. The area played a vital role in taking the air war to Germany. I do not have time to go into detail about each base, but I will do my best to give the House a whistlestop tour.

RAF Bridlington was made up of a number of units, including air gunnery schools, initial training wings, air-sea rescue and a marine craft unit. Just to the north, RAF Bempton was established as a radar station, becoming part of the Chain Home Low network. RAF Cottam near Driffield was a satellite base that was used only occasionally for flying and mostly as a bomb storage site. RAF Cowden to the south of Hornsea was an RAF bombing range. We are occasionally reminded of its past when bomb disposal teams are called in to deal with ordnance unearthed by the fast-eroding coastline.

RAF Hutton Cranswick was developed as a fighter base with many Spitfire squadrons passing through. It was used not only by the RAF but by the Royal Canadian Air Force and several Polish fighter squadrons. RAF Catfoss near Brandesburton had a small number of Spitfires and trained strike aircraft crews for operations in north Africa and the middle east. Huggate wold was surveyed for a bomber base, but a better location was found nearby. However, a pop-up airstrip was created at Huggate wold with steel mesh, as it was required for the invasion of Europe.

It is Bomber Command that has perhaps left its legacy in East Yorkshire. With its proximity to Germany, the area was home to hundreds of aircraft and crewed by men undertaking some of the most dangerous missions of the war in the skies over continental Europe. RAF Full Sutton, RAF Lissett and RAF Driffield were home to many of those bomber crews: Halifax bombers, Wellington bombers and others. The 158 Squadron based at RAF Lissett lost 144 aircraft in just two years, costing the lives of 851 airmen. They are remembered by a fantastic memorial on the Gransmoor Road just outside the village.

It was not just bomber air bases. We had RAF Carnaby near Bridlington, which was a particularly important military asset as it was one of only three emergency landing strips in the country. It was 2.7 km long and 230 metres wide—five times the normal width. More than 1,500 bombers made emergency landings at Carnaby during the war, including the Dambusters, who landed there with their grand slam bombs still on board when they were diverted due to bad weather over their targets in Germany.

While the RAF played a vital role in my constituency, the infantrymen of the East Yorkshire Regiment also served with distinction throughout the war. Their battalions served at Dunkirk and in India, Burma, north Africa and Sicily before landing in the first wave on Gold beach on D-day. Despite many casualties on that first day, they achieved all their objectives and fought on through Normandy and all the way to Germany. Our area also has a French connection as a number of regiments from the Free French army were based at Hornsea under General Leclerc.

I am delighted to have had the brief opportunity to highlight East Yorkshire’s rich wartime history, but I also want to pay tribute to all my constituents currently serving in the armed forces and to the 5,000 veterans living in the local area. Whether in Normandy or Northern Ireland, on land, air or sea: on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Europe, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Having been elected more recently, I am somewhat less burdened by previous legislation, but let me be clear: having worked in sports administration for many years, I have serious misgivings about a Government regulator in football. I know that this legislation started out as a very well-meaning initiative, but I have concerns—they have already been raised by other hon. Members—about creeping scope and the potential impact of Government meddling in a great British success story.

It is hard to argue that the premier league is not England’s finest export. It is the envy of global football, a competitive and unpredictable league that attracts the biggest names in the game to play in front of packed stadia, with hundreds of millions more watching around the world. The league contributes over £8 billion to the UK economy, pays £4 billion in tax, and employs over 90,000 people. Its reach is truly unparalleled, as other hon. Members have referenced. I have seen kids wearing Chelsea shirts in rural Rwanda and met Man United fans in Pyongyang—in fact, it may surprise the House to know that the premier league is widely watched in North Korea, albeit through pirated broadcasts. However, I understand that Spurs do not regularly feature in the coverage, thanks to their captain Son Heung-min.

I am sympathetic to fans up and down the country who fear that the owner of their football club is going to run it into the ground. As a Leeds fan, I know a thing or two about bad ownership and financial mismanagement, and we have heard some good examples of that from Members representing Reading and Sheffield Wednesday. However, we should dispel the myth that every football club owner is some super-rich maniac trying to squander their fortune in order to destroy a local football club.

[Peter Swallow]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that not all football club owners are maniacs determined to ruin their club, but I gently point out that this regulator will ensure that those clubs that do have such owners will be better protected in future. Does he not accept that point?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I disagree on the ideological level—on the ideological point about who should regulate football. I will come on to that in a second, but I do not believe it is the Government’s job. I believe that the football landscape already provides for regulation.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

No, I will make some progress on this point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

As a former employee of a football club, Hull City, and as someone who has worked for a national governing body of a sport at the Rugby Football Union, and for a national elite sport funding body at UK Sport, I have some experience of this issue. Each of those bodies—the EFL, the EPL and the FA—has a role in regulation.

[Chris Vince]

As a fellow Leeds United supporter, the hon. Gentleman was probably prepared for me to talk about the finances around the transfer of Seth Johnson to Leeds United, but does he recognise the words of John Madejski, who said that the best way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and own a football team? Does he recognise that the current ownership model needs to change?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Those of us who support a club that was previously owned by Ken Bates and Massimo Cellino have had our fair share of rough ownership over the years.

Coming back to the wider landscape and who should regulate, above the Football Association, EFL and EPL we have UEFA and FIFA as international bodies representing the global game, and they each have a regulatory function. I believe that instead of the Government creating yet another quango, headed up by a Labour party crony, they should be working with the Premier League, EFL and FA to resolve current concerns such as financial sustainability and fit and proper ownership. That would be a far more satisfactory outcome for the clubs and ensure that sport and politics are kept at arm’s length.

[Mark Ferguson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions UEFA and FIFA. Would he categorise those as organisations where politics is kept at arm’s length and where there is no place for cronyism?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

The hon. Member raises a very good point. FIFA’s recent history is not a proud one, but we do not have time to go into that. There is an important point about the way in which UEFA and FIFA operate within the landscape. There is a danger that measures including parachute payments, which affect competition tools and structures, being in the scope of the Bill places the Government on a collision course with those international federations. That has already been discussed.

Ultimately, the fact we are here discussing this Bill today is a sad indictment of the relationship between the existing stakeholders. However, it is not beyond the wit of Government to find solutions that do not involve a new regulator. [Interruption.] Well, I am not burdened by previous legislation. I also worry that the Bill is playing to a certain viewpoint among EFL clubs that money from the bottom half of the premier league should be redistributed en masse to the championship. Those clubs argue that that would give the promoted clubs—one of which I am a fan of—a better chance of success.

I fear that could have serious unintended consequences. It could create a small group of entrenched successful clubs at the top of the premier league and ultimately damage competition, as the top clubs accumulate more and more wealth, to the detriment of clubs lower down. It would effectively end any chance of a club such as Leicester winning the title, or teams such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and Nottingham Forest cementing themselves in the league and challenging for Europe. It would be another two-tier system created by this Labour Government.

The idea that the championship is a poor relation is also false. Every championship club receives £7.8 million from the Premier League, which is between 20% and 40% of their typical annual revenue. The EFL has recently signed a domestic broadcast deal worth more than £900 million, increasing its own revenues by 50%, and the championship is already the sixth-richest league in Europe.

Finally, I want to address the issue of the medium to long-term future of the regulator. This legislation has morphed from creating an independent regulator with a narrow scope to creating a Government regulator headed up by a Labour party donor, with sprawling powers. Once the regulator has dealt with the most pressing issues, who knows how it might justify its existence in future. The devil will surely make work for idle hands. My fear is that the football regulator will not behave as a guardian of the sport but will instead look to involve itself more and more in day-to-day club operations.

We have come a long way since the dark days of the 1980s—an era that reached its nadir just under 40 years ago with the Heysel disaster, which saw English clubs banned from European competition for five years. It was a period when the best English players sought to ply their trade in Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1. English football is now the envy of the world. I am sure our competitors in Spain, Italy and Germany are watching and would be delighted if we were to regulate ourselves into a less competitive place. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

1. What assessment the Church of England has made of the contribution of rural parishes.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

The Church of England has more than 10,000 churches in our towns and villages in rural areas. In addition to their regular processes of prayer and worship, parish churches play an important role in the life of our rural communities.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

In my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, rural parishes face huge financial pressures to maintain their historic church buildings. Their costs often run into tens of thousands, yet they receive no funding from the Church of England or the Government. The Church of England’s buildings comprise more than 50% of the country’s listed buildings, but all the money needed to maintain them has to be raised locally. This maintenance will soon be beyond the ability of our local churches in rural areas, so will the hon. Lady make representations to the Church of England to ensure that there is more financial support for local churches so that we save this wonderful part of our heritage?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I congratulate the hon. Member on being a true champion for his constituency and also for the need for additional resources that will ensure that our churches can truly stand the test of time. I shall certainly raise these issues and write to him about what steps he can take at a local level. It is also worth pointing out that representing rural communities and dioceses, bishops do meet regularly on a quarterly basis to look at best practice and other ways that they can support their diocese better.

Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I will call Charlie Dewhirst to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of free-to-view access for the Six Nations Rugby Championship in 2026 and beyond.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am pleased to have secured this timely debate on the future of the Six Nations and its broadcast in the UK, as the championship’s current deal with the BBC and ITV comes to an end after this tournament. For the record, I am a former employee of the Rugby Football Union, but I have not been an employee there since 2017. I am delighted to be joined today by colleagues from across the four home nations, but I assure hon. Members that I will not mention the results of the England or Wales games at the weekend—there is no need to dwell on those.

First, I will address the importance of the Six Nations to rugby union and the nation. It is one of the most popular annual sporting events, and over the weekend millions of people across the UK were watching at home, in the pub and at rugby clubs. It celebrates old rivalries between the home nations and inspires so many children to get involved in the game. It also fills a void in the sporting calendar during the cold and wet weekends in February and March, when not many other major events—or, indeed, anything else—are taking place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not want to rub salt into the wound, but we had a magnificent game this Saturday and we enjoyed the victory; others will come—there are more to go. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate, and he mentioned a factor that is critical for me and for most of us. Does he agree that UK buy-in at the Olympic games, and the national pride experienced, are partly due to the accessibility, which means that people can watch and become engaged? That is one way for us to inspire the next generation of boys and girls he referred to.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely agree; the hon. Member makes a good point. I will come on in some detail to the importance of the tournament’s accessibility and how it inspires the next generation of fans and players. I also note that the match at the weekend was really excellent for at least 40 minutes, but we will leave it there.

The tournament has a rich history. It was first played in 1883, as the Home Nations championship, among the four home nations of the United Kingdom. In 1910, the tournament became the Five Nations championship in 1910, with the addition of France. In 2000, it was expanded to become the Six Nations, when Italy was invited to join.

Over the years, the Five and then the Six Nations has provided many iconic moments. Would you believe, Ms Jardine, that I am just about old enough to remember the great Scottish grand slam-winning side of 1990? Who can forget what Gavin Henson did to us English in 2005? On the flipside, I was lucky enough to be at the Millennium stadium in 2017 when Elliot Daly scored that last-minute winner to break Welsh hearts. The tournament has made names such as Hastings, O’Driscoll, Warburton and Itoje household names. My fear is that any move away from free-to-air television could see audiences plummet and risk us missing out on the next generation of rugby players and fans.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this really important debate. According to a recent study by CHoosing Active Role Models to INspire Girls, only 28% of 14-year-olds were able to identify a sporting role model. Does he agree that if the women’s Six Nations follows the men’s game and moves behind a paywall, it would limit girls’ access to the sport, reduce visibility and ultimately harm efforts to grow women’s participation in rugby?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely agree. The women’s rugby game has been a huge success story over the last decade, and the free-to-air coverage that we have of the women’s Six Nations has been a key part of that. I pay tribute to all the clubs up and down the country that have done such a huge amount of work to get more girls and women into the game and to play it.

To go back to what I was saying about free-to-air access across the board, all current matches are shown on the BBC and ITV. That ensures that the sport has a vital window to the wider population; that is key to keeping it in the national spotlight. It is worth recalling that the last comprehensive free-to-air broadcast deal for test cricket was for the 2005 Ashes series—arguably the greatest of all time—but I question whether that rollercoaster summer of cricket would have grabbed the nation’s attention in the same way had it not been accessible to all.

Since then, cricketing authorities have been battling for the survival of the test format; this is 20 years after it went behind a paywall. They have had to invent what I will call a new gimmick format for free-to-air television in an attempt to win over the next generation of fans. Thankfully, today’s is not a debate about the pros and cons of the Hundred, so I will return to the matters in hand.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We could go on for hours on that.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

We could. Perhaps that is an opportunity for later in the year; we could return to Westminster Hall.

There were several reports in the media last week that a deal between the Six Nations and TNT Sports for coverage in 2026 and beyond was imminent. I am grateful to the Six Nations for providing me with clarification on that point, and I can confirm that those reports are inaccurate, as any deal has yet to go out to tender. That does, however, set the backdrop for today’s debate, as it will be vital that any new deal maintains free-to-air coverage.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for initiating this timely debate. Does he agree that the Six Nations needs to ensure that there is a balance between reach and revenue when entering into these conversations with broadcasters?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and the debate is very timely, given what I am about to say. I am also grateful for her contribution, given her role in Parliament as regards rugby and her previous role in the sport as well. I am very aware that income from broadcast deals is vital to the home nations’ rugby unions, but I would caution against a dash to the highest bidder. This should be a case not of maximising income but of optimising it so that the sport continues to have a broad reach, which in turn creates more fans.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I think the decision would run counter to the aim of increasing engagement in the sport. The hon. Member will know that the Rugby Football Union receives £28 million of taxpayers’ money to not only deliver the women’s rugby world cup but improve engagement in the women’s game. However, is he aware that the joint venture between the rugby world cup and the RFU to deliver the tournament awarded the contract to provide the equipment to Rhino Rugby, a long-term RFU sponsor, which was paid £800,000 and selected ahead of Aramis Rugby, which offered to deliver all the equipment for free? I would question that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do more to monitor how taxpayers’ money is spent and whether that is being done in the interest of growing the game?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I think we can all agree that we are looking forward to the women’s world cup. I am not aware of the detail of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, but I am sure it is something the Minister will take an interest. I hope they can both meet to discuss it further.

Viewing figures for matches that involve the home nations and that are shown free to air during the Six Nations have significantly outperformed viewing figures for, for example, the autumn internationals on subscription services showing the same countries. If rugby risks its broader fanbase, it will become harder to attract other sponsors, and that will become counterproductive in the long term. These are, of course, commercial decisions for private organisations, but Parliament does have a say through the listed sporting events. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has powers, using the Broadcasting Act 1996, to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

In Wales, rugby is of course a part of our culture and national identity, and international tournaments such as the Six Nations are an integral part of our national calendar. Caerfyrddin, my constituency, has produced a plethora of first-class players. There are far too many to name, although perhaps I should drop in one or two such as, in the past glory days, Roy Bergiers and Delme Thomas, and more recently, Shane Williams—a phenomenal player—Mike Phillips and, to come up to date, Gareth Davies. There are many more. Does the hon. Member agree that, win or lose—as is our case at the moment—rugby brings us all together in Wales and should be included in group A? Of course, the free-to-view aspect is also so important for S4C, which produces our Welsh-language-medium coverage of sport. This tournament needs to be included in group A.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not agree more. I hope that the hon. Lady’s local clubs will play a key role in the rebuild of the national side and that there will be a few more victories in future.

Returning to listed events, the broadcast rights must be offered to the main free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. The aim is to ensure that events are made available to all television viewers and are placed in groups A and B. Any group A events must be shown in full and live by the qualifying broadcaster, but group B can have live coverage on subscription services, as long as the highlights are then provided to free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters.

Currently, group A events include the Olympic and Paralympic games, the men’s and women’s football world cup finals tournaments, the men’s and women’s European football championship tournaments, the FA cup final, the Scottish FA cup final, the grand national, the Wimbledon tennis finals, the rugby union world cup final, the Derby and the rugby league Challenge cup final. Group B, which only needs highlights on free to air, is test cricket matches played in England, non-finals play in Wimbledon, all other matches in the rugby union world cup finals tournament, the Commonwealth games, the world athletics championship, the cricket world cup where home nations are playing in the final or semi-final, the Ryder cup, the Open golf championship and the Six Nations.

In terms of basic viewing figures, the Six Nations outperforms a number of events already in group A. England games regularly have in excess of 4 million viewers, which is higher than either the Derby or the rugby league Challenge cup final.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He mentioned his previous occupation, and we had this discussion when the RFU did a deal for England home games in the Six Nations and, I think, for away games against France. We saw a big difference in viewership figures for those England games, which fell from an average of 4 or 5 million to just 2 million. With the Six Nations games now averaging 8 million, it would be a huge drop if we were to return to those sorts of numbers. Perhaps the RFU, and those making this decision, should keep that in mind, particularly when we are trying to get as many people as possible to watch these games.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we get the timings of the games and everything else right so that we optimise the broadcast number. As we have seen with various experiments in recent years, whether games take place on Friday nights or Sunday afternoons, rather than the traditional Saturday afternoon, also has a bearing. That all needs to be taken into account, as I am sure it will be as the negotiations progress in the coming months.

As has been mentioned, the tournament attracts about 120 million viewers—a clear demonstration of its popularity. The Six Nations matches involving the home countries should be moved from group B to group A to ensure that this much-loved tournament continues to have the broadest possible reach. That is vital for the health of the game, from elite level down to the grassroots.

Watching our international teams through free-to-air coverage of the Six Nations is often the only exposure fans will have to professional rugby. For many of us across the UK, the opportunity to watch elite club rugby in person is a postcode lottery. My own constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds in East Yorkshire is equidistant from three of the closest English premiership teams: Leicester, Newcastle and Sale. Anyone with the vaguest grasp of geography will know that none of those is remotely close to where I live.

In my part of the world, the grassroots game is therefore the bedrock of local rugby. Clubs such as Bridlington, Driffield, Hornsea and Pocklington do an incredible job of introducing hundreds of boys and girls to the sport every year, ensuring the continued strength of the amateur game. To take one example, Driffield fields six senior teams—four men’s teams and two ladies’ teams—and has minis and juniors at every age group from under-sixes to under-16s. Those are the epitome of community sports clubs, but many of those kids gave rugby a go only because they wanted to be the next Marcus Smith, Finn Russell or Liam Williams. I suggest that watching the Six Nations, and being inspired by it, is a huge part of the pathway to taking up the sport.

My final point is less about sport and more about our United Kingdom and our friends in Ireland, France and Italy. No other tournament pits England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales against each other, every year, in such a high-profile event. All of us love to use the games to bring up old rivalries and have a cheap dig at our neighbours. However, it is an occasion that shows that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way on that point, because rugby does bring us together, but we cannot ignore the financial challenges faced by the sport we love in all of the home nations and overseas. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that public sector broadcasting comes to the table and is able to be competitive and to provide a future, so that grassroots sport and future generations keep playing rugby and have a love of the sport, as we all do in this Chamber?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not have put it better myself. It is so important to get the balance right between ensuring a secure financial future for our unions and the availability of the game to the widest possible audience. A symbiotic, positive relationship between those things will ensure the healthy future of the game across the United Kingdom.

Sport has a unique ability to be a force for good, and the Six Nations does that as well as any event. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to consider the importance of the tournament to rugby union and the United Kingdom. I call on her to review the listed sporting events and to put the Six Nations in the top tier, where it belongs.