House of Commons - European Scrutiny

Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirteenth Report

COMMUNITY SUPPORT PLAN TO COMBAT DOPING IN SPORT

(20988)
—
COM(99) 643

Commission Communication: Community Support Plan to Combat
Doping in Sport.

Legal base:	—

Document originated:	1 December 1999
Deposited in Parliament:	18 February 2000
Department:	Culture, Media and Sport
Basis of consideration:	EM of 29 February 2000
Previous Committee Report:	None
To be discussed in Council:	None planned
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	For debate in European Standing Committee C, together with the Helsinki Report on Sport (see paragraph 2 above)

Background

3.1 The Helsinki Report on Sport, which we considered on 9 February and consider again in this Report, included a short section on doping in sport. It referred to the Community document which we consider here. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (The Rt. Hon. Chris Smith) describes the Plan as having no formal status, as the EU has no direct competence in sport. His Explanatory Memorandum should, therefore, he suggests, be regarded as being for information only. The document was deposited at our request.

The Commission Communication

3.2 The Commission explains that, in drawing up the Plan, it is responding to demands made by other Community institutions and by bodies concerned with doping.

3.3 In December 1998, the Vienna European Council expressed concern at the scale of doping in sport and stressed the need for action at EU level. Subsequently, the Ministers responsible for sport met on an informal basis on three occasions in 1999 to discuss the doping problem.

3.4 On 17 December 1998 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution[11] in which it called on the Commission to take into account the real dimension of the doping problem and to propose measures at Community level with a view to better co-ordination and complementarity between national and European measures and actions.

3.5 The Committee of the Regions also supported the European Parliament's call for "the presentation by the Commission of proposals designed to implement a harmonised public health policy with a view to combating doping."

3.6 The Commission says that it has adopted a three-pronged approach, which it summarises as to:

"— contribute to preparing the World Anti-doping Conference and work together with the Olympic movement to create the World Anti-Doping Agency;

"— mobilise Community instruments with a view to supplementing the actions already underway in the Member States and to vesting them with a Community dimension, taking account inter alia of the growing mobility of European sportspersons and the Community's competences relevant to the field of doping."

3.7 It sets out at greater length what action it has taken, under three headings:

(1) Prioritise ethics, reinforce protection of sportspersons' health

3.8 The Commission started by seeking the opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies[12] (EGE) on the Ethical Aspects arising from Doping in Sport. This was delivered on 11 November 1999 and is annexed to the Commission Communication.

3.9 The EGE, in its opinion, offers a definition for doping in sport, and covers issues of health and medical ethics, detection, the viability of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), education and research, funding for anti-doping and health measures and a code of conduct, as well as setting out its views on an ethical approach. It says that some fundamental European ethical principles should be taken into consideration in the fight against doping, such as:

the protection of the health and safety of citizens, which includes sportsmen and women;

integrity and transparency, which requires guaranteeing the honesty of sports events and the outlawing of cheating;

the protection of vulnerable persons, especially children; and

the dignity of sportsmen and women and their freedom from exploitation.

3.10 The EGE says that sportsmen and women have rights and obligations in following an ethical approach and they relate mainly to:

autonomy over their own bodies;

information about what kind of substances, methods and risks are involved;

competition under fair conditions, based on equality of access to competition;

protection from any kind of exploitation linked to economic interests which could seriously limit the autonomy of the sportsman/woman;

participation in the implementation of ethical rules in sport; and

participation in decision-making processes in the various sports concerned, with the aim of informing the sportsmen/women about risks, advantages, forms of medicalization and how rules are defined with regard to controls and sanctions.

3.11 The range of measures proposed by the EGE include:

"— the adoption of a directive on the protection of young sportspersons, notably those who aspire to become professionals;

"— the adoption of specific provisions on the protection of sportspersons, as workers exposed to particular risks;

"— promotion of epidemiological research into the health of sportspersons;

"— organisation of conferences on doping and the health of sportspersons in collaboration with the sports community;

"— sensitisation of education professionals to the problem of sports ethics;

"— increased level of police and judicial co-operation;

"— inclusion in sportspersons' contracts of references to doping and the fact that it is banned;

"— the adoption of a joint declaration equivalent to a code of practice in sport at the end of a European conference on doping in sport."

3.12 The Commission notes that the EGE reiterated that:

"... the war on doping is a shared responsibility of the sports associations and federations, sportspersons themselves, their medical and technical environments, and all other parties involved, especially public bodies."

(2) Towards a new partnership: The World Anti-Doping Agency

3.13 The Commission says that the second strand of Community action is participation in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which was set up on 10 November 1999[13]. In October, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had written to the Presidency of the Council and to the President of the Commission, inviting them to finalise the constitution of the Agency, and to participate in it. The IOC hoped that it would be fully operational in time for the Sydney Olympic Games in September 2000.

3.14 The Commission points out that several tasks entrusted to WADA "concern" Community competence, for example, public health, research, and free movement. Its decisions will only have the status of recommendations under Community law, but it is important that all parties should accept a moral commitment to put these into practice. Amongst the Agency's responsibilities will be:

to establish, adapt, modify and update the list of banned substances and methods prohibited in the practice of sport, as a service to all the public and private bodies concerned, including the IOC, International Sports Federations (IF), National Olympic Committees (NOC) and the athletes;

the accreditation of testing laboratories and the harmonisation of testing methods; and

to plan and co-ordinate out-of-competition testing.

(3) Making the most of the Community's instruments

3.15 This section covers the third strand of actions which the Commission proposes should be taken in the war on doping in sport. It suggests that two types of action could be considered. Firstly, better co-ordination of regulatory measures and, secondly, mobilisation of Community programmes which could support positive anti-doping measures at European level. The Commission suggests that its efforts might focus on:

intensifying research into doping substances, detection methods, health impact of doping, and doping as a socio-economic phenomenon;

mobilising education, vocational training and youth programmes to provide information and training, as well as awareness-raising and prevention, on doping;

making the most of the police and judicial co-operation programmes;

reinforcing information on medical products; and

developing actions relevant to public health policy.

3.16 All these actions, it says, should make the most of existing Community instruments. It spells out its ideas on where there is scope for doing so, at Annex 1 to the Communication.

3.17 The Commission notes, for instance, that the Fifth Framework Programme[14] (FP5) includes three main lines of work which have an anti-doping dimension: the preparation of methods and instruments to detect and measure critical substances; the development of co-operation between anti-doping laboratories and training of their technicians; and understanding the long-term effects of doping on the individual.

3.18 However, certain aspects of these activities could be built on. For instance, the IOC has identified the development of basic medical knowledge and measurement-linked technologies as possible research priorities for FP5.

3.19 The Commission goes on to contend that the Commission's youth, education and vocational training programmes can make a useful contribution to the war on doping. It suggests that an anti-doping dimension, in the form of awareness-raising prevention, training and information, could be integrated into programmes such as LEONARDO and SOCRATES as well as future Community youth action programmes.

3.20 Similarly, an anti-doping dimension could be built into such police and judicial co-operation programmes as OISIN (the joint programme of exchanges and training of, and co-operation between, law enforcement authorities) and GROTIUS (the programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners) and their possible follow-up programmes.

3.21 Information on medical products could be improved, the Commission suggests. Some, but not all, Member States indicate on the leaflet enclosed with medical products that the product concerned contains an active ingredient which may lead to a positive reaction in tests carried out in the context of anti-doping controls. It proposes that this issue should be discussed by the Pharmaceutical Committee.

3.22 As for actions relevant to public health policy, the Commission intends to put forward a proposal for a Council Recommendation, under Article 152 of the Treaty, which must, it maintains, provide a basis for increased co-ordination of policies on doping in sport. In order to facilitate and promote sport free of doping agents and methods among athletes, the Recommendation will require Member States to:

"(b) include prevention of doping in the basic and continuous education of health professionals and facilitate them with appropriate resources to develop a preventive role;

"(c) encourage prevention programmes developed by sports clubs, schools and universities, community and health centres;

"(d) promote the active participation of athletes through peer education and focus on the sport team;

"(e) inform parents about the risks of doping and encourage them to foster in their children the basic values of good health, fair play and team spirit;

"(f) mainstream doping prevention, when appropriate, in drug dependency prevention and health education programmes;

"(g) take appropriate measures to avoid over-training and too many competitions which leave no time for rest and may lead to doping".

3.23 The Recommendation will invite the Commission to undertake a range of administrative activities in support of the objectives of the Recommendation. Furthermore, it says, the new framework Public Health Action Plan, which will be proposed shortly, will provide opportunities to focus on anti-doping measures.

3.24 In conclusion, the Commission says that it will work closely with other international partners and reaffirms its desire to contribute to the success of WADA and to put in place the Community Support Plan to combat doping. It will also work "hand in glove" with the Council of Europe and will consider presenting a recommendation to the Council that the Community accede to the European Anti-Doping Convention.[15]

The Government's view

3.25 The Secretary of State describes the document as a "strategic" plan and notes that the Commission is looking for further co-operation on doping issues and the adoption of a joint declaration equivalent to a code of practice in sport. The paper does not include any direct proposals for funding, but the Minister notes that, during the budgetary process, the European Parliament added a funding line of 5 million euro. He says that the Government:

"... strongly supports subsidiarity on all sporting issues due to the heterogenous nature of sporting organisation across the European Union. International co-operation is important but is best achieved through WADA with Member States co-ordinating their position through an inter-governmental process."

3.26 Commenting on other matters dealt with in the paper, the Minister says that the Government accepts that the war on doping is a shared responsibility and agrees with many of the recommendations made by the EGE. However, he says that it does not think the Commission is the right body to take this work forward. Whilst the Government can see the value of many of the recommendations made by the group, it would consider it more appropriate for these to be taken forward by WADA.

3.27 Providing further background to the setting up of WADA, the Minister says that four seats on the Board have been reserved for Europe, two for partners within the EU and two for representatives of the Council of Europe:

"The UK has been active in ensuring that the Commission's role in WADA is limited in line with its limited competence in sport. The UK and other Member States already have effective anti-doping measures. But their concern about the issue is one reason why EU Member States have taken such a keen interest in the establishment of WADA.

"Funding for WADA from 2002 onwards needs careful consideration but we believe this is an issue for Member States themselves. The UK will resist any pressure for the funding of WADA through the EU and the Council of Europe."

3.28 The Government accepts that there is a need for more research but, the Minister says, it sees this as the prime responsibility of WADA. WADA's Board, with its representatives coming from both government and sport, is far better positioned to take a lead in anti-doping activity. In the UK, he adds, there is already a comprehensive education programme, run by UK Sport.

3.29 The Minister says that he fears that the planned action outlined in the Communication could have the effect of indirectly increasing Community competence in sport.

Conclusion

3.30 The Secretary of State is at pains to emphasise the limits of Community competence in sport and spells out his fear that, if the actions outlined by the Commission are undertaken, the effect could be to increase Community competence. He, therefore, recognises the importance of the proposals made, yet describes the document as being for information only and expresses no regret for the Government's failure to ensure that it was deposited. We believe that the issues raised in it are of political importance and that it should have been obvious to the Government that it should be deposited.

3.31 The Minister finds himself in a position which is as uncomfortable as it is familiar; he is responsible for an area of policy which is not as such within the Community's competence. But, as we pointed out in our paragraph in this Report on the Helsinki Report on Sport, sport is within the scope of application of Treaty rules, in so far as it is an economic activity. The Commission can also argue plausibly that the Community has a potential for action on doping in sport in such policy areas as public health which, according to Article 152 EC, includes "complementing the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage"; that appears wide enough to include measures on doping in sport. It is not a sufficient answer to this argument to restate the Community's lack of competence for sport as such.

3.32 It is not, however, clear to us whether the Minister's position is that the Community (or the Union) cannot deal with issues of doping in sport under its educational and vocational training, police and judicial co-operation and public health programmes or that it should not do so. In either case he needs to explain the reasons for whatever his position is.

3.33 Sport at the professional level has numerous links, both personal and economic, between participants and clubs within the European Union; it follows that the practical case for the non-involvement of its institutions in combatting doping has to be argued for, not merely asserted. To take the example of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters of which a central objective is to combat "illicit drug trafficking", is it not the case that some at least of the drugs used to enhance sporting performance are illicit and the subject of trafficking? If that is so, why should police and judicial co-operation in this area be any less effective than in others?

3.34 The Communication provides Parliament with an opportunity to look at detailed proposals by the Commission and consider whether, in its view:

a number of the actions could and should be undertaken by the Community, rather than the World Anti-Doping Agency, or the Member States acting independently; or whether

the planned action could indeed have the effect of indirectly increasing Community competence in sport and whether, if this is considered undesirable, it should be countered.

3.35 When we considered the Helsinki Report on Sport in February, we envisaged that we might wish to recommend it for debate. We decided then to await the report of the Employment Sub-Committee on work permits for overseas footballers, but that is now not expected to be published before mid-April. We also said that we would wait for an answer to a number of questions which we put to the Secretary of State. We consider his response elsewhere in this Report[16].

3.36 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 18 February on this document, the Secretary of State says that the Commission is not likely to delay before putting forward the proposals it trails in this Support Plan and that the French are keen to take these forward during their Presidency in the latter half of 2000.

3.37 In these circumstances, we have decided that we should make our recommendation now. This is that the Helsinki Report on Sport and the Community Support Plan on doping in Sport raise issues of political importance and should be debated together in European Standing Committee C.

11 Resolution on urgent measures to be taken against doping in sport: OJ No. C 98, 9.4.99. Back

12 The European Group on Ethics was officially set up in 1991 at the initiative of President Delors. Following changes in 1998 it now consists of 12 members, all highly qualified European experts in different fields. The Group's purpose is to deliver opinions for the Commission. Back

13 A copy of the Constitutive Instrument of Foundation is annexed to the Commission document. Back

14 Decision No. 182/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 1998 concerning the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998 to 2002); OJ No. L26, 1.2.99, p.1. Back

15 Council of Europe - European Treaties - ETS No. 135. Back

16 (20765) - ; see paragraph 2 above. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2000	Prepared 26 April 2000