I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on securing a debate on pay-per-view television, and on setting out his views with such clarity. He speaks with some authority on the issue, as I understand that 40 per cent. of people in Milton Keynes are already on line—a figure far in advance of other areas.

My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) also contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West rightly pointed out his concerns about the increasing commercialisation in sport, and the need for the football task force to look at that matter. I can assure him that I will pass on his comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who will take them on board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey spoke with great authority on the issue. He referred to regulation of the internet and how that might be achieved, and he mentioned the situation in the United States. He eloquently set out some of the important issues that we will face in the future.

This subject is of interest to many hon. Members, and many people outside. In discussing the matter, we should remember that pay-per-view is not only relevant to sport—other pay services, including films, could well be vital in television's digital future. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to that. However, he is particularly concerned with sports broadcasting.

The Government's main concern in sports broadcasting is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance, and we have recently reviewed the protected list to achieve just that. Having said that, we do not believe that our responsibilities to viewers end there. Our public service broadcasters have a responsibility to provide programming for all tastes and interests, and sport should clearly be part of what they offer. We will continue to monitor the position as the television market develops.

The shape of that market is starting to become clear. Digital satellite broadcasting has already begun, and digital terrestrial will follow shortly. Viewers will have a wider choice of channels than ever before. Those services may well include specialist sports channels, and pay-per-view may be one way for broadcasters to fund these new services for the committed sports viewer.

Pay-per-view may also bring benefits to sport, with new services covering events which broadcasters would not be able to transmit on a general channel, because of the costs of coverage or the small size of the likely audience. I shall return to that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is concerned—he is not alone—about the possible consequences of BSkyB's takeover of Manchester United. He feels that this may lead to United's fans being asked to pay for access to coverage of the club's matches in the premier league after 2001. I can assure him that his concern on that point has been noted.

As the House is aware, the Director General of Fair Trading is presently considering his recommendation on the merger to the Secretary of State. He will announce his conclusions before 2 November. It is right that the Office of Fair Trading should be left to make an independent assessment of the issues involved, and the Government should not speculate on the outcome at this time.

My hon. Friend also noted that the restrictive practices court is considering the validity of the premier league's collective broadcasting arrangements early next year. He will understand that I cannot comment in detail on that for the same reasons. However, it is clear that the shape of the market for the rights to top league football may be very different come the spring. Given those uncertainties, we need to come to a balanced view on the subject of pay-per-view services for all sports—not just for football.

Pay-per-view sports services in this country are in their infancy, and have so far been confined to boxing matches. There has been much talk about pay-per-view in other sports, but it seems that the industry is still not sure about who will watch them, and how much they will be prepared to pay.

I believe that broadcasters and sporting bodies are right to be cautious. The issues involved in pay-per-view are complicated. It is not enough for a broadcaster to identify a potential audience for an event. Sport is an equal partner in any contract, and it must find a balance among a number of considerations—the need for wide exposure of flagship events, the impact of television coverage on attendances at grounds, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the requirements of sponsors and advertisers.

All sports wish to stay in the public eye, not least to encourage the interest and participation of young viewers. I speak with some authority on that—I have three teenage children who are fanatical Blackburn Rovers fans. Sponsoring companies often demand the exposure that only free-to-air television can bring. As a result, many sports organisations, including the International Olympic Committee and UEFA, have publicly committed themselves to free-to-air coverage.

For example, the governing body for the formula one championship has also indicated its preference for free-to-air coverage. That is despite surveys that suggest that a substantial number of viewers in the UK would be prepared to pay to watch grand prix races.

Sport must also guard against eating into its own audiences by rushing into pay-per-view. Football still takes the largest part of its income through the turnstile, and it must guard against alienating the fans who make the effort to attend matches.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, football must consider the lessons learned by overseas leagues. He mentioned Italy. When the Italian football league embraced pay-per-view, its attendances fell by more than the number of viewers watching the games on television. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister for Sport would put that down to the decreasing appeal of the Italian league compared to those of other nations, such as our own premiership—much of Italy's national team now plays here, after all. British football must be careful, and the Government are sure that the point is not lost on those deciding future broadcasting contracts.

Broadcasters themselves acknowledge the complexities of pay-per-view. BSkyB decided against charging viewers to watch a specially arranged snooker tournament earlier this year. Although top snooker players have great appeal for viewers, BSkyB and other broadcasters realise that people want to watch meaningful and established championship events. In making arrangements for their flagship events, sports bodies usually want a balance between revenues and maximum exposure.

The tendency to self-regulation in the broadcasting market is reassuring, but we should recognise that there is a market for pay viewing of certain sports events, and that pay-per-view can bring benefits both to sport and to the armchair fan.