Apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend mentioned the internet. One reason why I introduced the debate is that the converging technologies mean that the traditional way of broadcasting programmes is changing. I am not opposed to pay-per-view on the internet or television, but I want a level playing field so that pay-per-view can compete with the internet, terrestrial television and digital television.

Pay-per-view is not only about sport—it also relates to films, although it is probably too late to stop the rot for films. However, a number of social questions need to be raised. The proponents of pay-per-view have said that paying for films is just like going to the video shop. I am concerned that, if pay-per-view becomes the norm and video shops go out of business, people who do not have access to pay-per-view and cannot afford it will suffer. There are suggestions that, in those areas where pay-per-view is available—some cable companies have been running it for about six months—people are choosing five or six movies a month, and their habits are becoming quite regular. That may be true for some, but others might not be able to afford it. We must get the balance right.

There is also the question of what happens in clubs and pubs showing sport or films. If pay-per-view becomes the norm, the deals that pubs and clubs have at the moment might become much more difficult to sustain.

I have referred to the principal reasons why pay-per-view is not prevalent in sports broadcasting at the moment. However, there is one exception—boxing. I am not a boxing fan, but ITV used to have a good Saturday night fight programme. Now the only place one can see a decent boxing match is on pay-per-view. Sky subscribers who pay £30 or £40 a month for the full package will have to pay £10 extra to watch McCullough beat Naseem on Saturday night.

When I became involved in the debate, I was happy to say, "Let's ban all pay-per-view television, because it is absolutely disgraceful." However, I was quickly brought up by my researcher, who said, "Hang on, I like watching pay-per-view. I am quite prepared to pay extra for a film or sports match. I don't want the whole package—I want the additional choice." That emphasises the point I am trying to make. If it is a question of additionality, pay-per-view is reasonable.

If the economics of pay-per-view means that the existing broadcasters of sport and films lose—if all we are left with is a 10-minute highlights programme—there will be a problem, and the quality of broadcasting that we have become used to in this country will be diminished. It is easy to destroy what we have, but it is hard to rebuild it. If pay-per-view destroys some of our broadcasting quality, I would hesitate to say that we could get back to where we are now.

Before we go much further, we need to debate the appropriate level for pay-per-view, and its regulation. We must discuss the content versus the technology. If we do not regulate, we could end up in an anti-competitive position, and we would all lose. If we get it right—and if pay-per-view is competitive and adds choice—the new technologies will give their full benefit. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the Select Committee report, and to ensure that, when new technologies are discussed, the question of regulation is brought up.