Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)

27 APRIL 2004

Rt Hon Richard Caborn, and Mr Stephen Hodgson

  Q260 Michael Fabricant: Will DCMS pay for such a panel?

  Mr Caborn: UK Sport is a fully funded NDPB, so in that sense they are the agent of government through the rules of government NDPBs.

  Q261 Michael Fabricant: So have you ordered, if you like, or given a clear directive to UK Sport that this is an outcome that you would like to see?

  Mr Caborn: No, I think overall, as you will know, Mr Fabricant, we have been going through a whole modernisation programme on the structure of sport. Part of that modernisation programme has been to look at each of our NDPBs, and we are in the process of re-organising UK Sport. Part of that remit was to look at this whole question of drugs, not just in the appeals but in the round, because there were some criticisms made and that is why we put the whole of the drugs out to third-party examination. That report is now in the public domain and was part of the discussions at the Sports Cabinet in Belfast last week with our colleagues from the devolved administrations as to how we should take these forward, and there was a general agreement about the findings of the report, that we keep it with UK Sport, but there were areas, and this was one of those, where further work ought to be carried out, and that is in fact what is happening. So, broadly, we have accepted the report. We will be keeping the continued running of the anti-doping policy inside UK Sport.

  Q262 Michael Fabricant: Given that you agree that there ought to be consistency in the way hearings are held, given that you agree that there ought to be clear labelling of supplements, given that you agree that there needs to be an independent tribunal, how are you going to deliver it? You are Minister for Sport. How are you personally going to deliver it?

  Mr Caborn: I shall see what the recommendations are from the piece of work that is being done by UK Sport and we shall act on them, as we have acted on every other report that has come before us. It is part of the modernisation programme and we will act on those findings and we will come back and let the Committee know, as soon as we can, when we have got the report from UK Sport.

  Q263 Derek Wyatt: Good morning, Minister. "There was no disciplinary process, no explanation for her removal, no hint about who might replace her." That was said in the Sunday Times about Michele Verroken, who, even by WADA standards, is probably one of the greatest directors of Drug-free Sport we have ever had in this country or anywhere else in fact. Can you please tell us why she was fired?

  Mr Caborn: Well, that is a management issue and we have been going through a whole series of reorganisation through sport, Mr Wyatt. I think you know, the Chief Executive of Sport England left and, indeed, a number of people. That is not to say that those people who have left those jobs are people who were not doing the job that they were employed for, but we are changing, and both in terms of Sport England and UK Sport and the governing bodies, coaching, there has been some radical overhaul of the structures of sport. We put people in to manage change and that is what is happening. It is not, I do not think, for politicians to get involved in those decisions of management. That is for managers to do. I am a politician, not a professional manager. Therefore when we put people in to do a job you look at the outcomes of those and, indeed, we supported what has been done, not just in UK Sport but across the whole structure of sport in the last two, two and a half years.

  Q264 Derek Wyatt: Minister, we wear a wider hat than just coming in front of a select committee. We have procedures for sacking people. We have early warnings. We have whole things that we believe are correct and proper in the way in which we have employment laws. Is it not fair that somebody who has given 18 years of her life, who is a major cause ce«le"bre in the world that she should be told why she has been fired; and, by the way, why fire the best person? It does not make any sense. There is nothing about modernisation.

  Mr Caborn: That may be your judgment, Mr Wyatt. It was not the judgment of those people we put in to do the modernisation programme. As I say, when you ask people to go in to modernise an organisation, whether it is UK Sport, Sport England, or whatever, you do not put people in and then tell them that they are doing wrong. We had confidence in the people that we put in to modernise that, and that is an employment issue at the end of the day, and, as I think you know, Mr Wyatt, ministers do not get involved in the application of employment law through NDPBs.

  Q265 Derek Wyatt: Are you saying, therefore, that neither Tessa Jowell nor yourself had any idea that Michele Verroken was going to get fired that day?

  Mr Caborn: We were informed of all the moves, that and indeed many others that were done, in the process of reorganising UK Sport. We were fully informed of that on a daily basis and I believe that is the right way for the management to report into the ministerial team.

  Q266 Derek Wyatt: It seems to me that it should be Sue Campbell who should have been shown the door. I think we have behaved irresponsibly over the position of Michele Verroken, but let us pass on. In 1988 I helped make a film with Charles Thompson about David Jenkins, who made drugs near San Diego; and in our research we found that the issue was that all of the testosterone and steroid drugs were available in weight-training, and it is weight-training that is bane of our life. There are two questions really. Why can we not make steroids a criminal offence, the possession of steroids a criminal offence?

  Mr Caborn: I am advised that the supply of steroids is actually a criminal offence, but the possession is not. So there are a lot of grey areas in the law in that area, and again, I think further investigations by WADA and the governing bodies need to take place on this.

  Q267 Derek Wyatt: But would you see a case for us saying that we would move to make possession—

  Mr Caborn: No, I think if we are going to move into the sports area we have to try and move that in concert with what we are trying to do. Since 1999 we have been trying to bring some consistency, in terms of this area of sport, through the wider Code. It is about that consistency and therefore starting to take unilateral action, I think, would not be helpful to moving the international scene forward, which I think is where we are going to get results of having drug-free sport.

  Q268 Derek Wyatt: So you would rather WADA waited to make a case rather than us take a lead?

  Mr Caborn: No, we can initiate and, as I said, on supplements we are taking a view on supplements and we are doing a fair amount of work around supplements, but how you then start applying that, I think, is something that we ought to have discussions with WADA. We are moving WADA—as I say, we are in discussions now through UNESCO as well, but in this particular area I think it is not to take unilateral action, I think it is to get all the information and try to take that forward through WADA.

  Q269 Chairman: Could I intervene on that? It may well be that this is not relevant to your own departmental responsibilities but it is a Department of Health responsibility, but there is a view that these dietary supplements are an absolute scam, that in terms of dietary welfare they are useless though they may have the kind of consequences that are being discussed in sport?

  Mr Caborn: I think that, Mr Kaufman, is something that we would have to continue to have dialogue with the Department of Health. When we are talking about the WADA Code, we are now looking at a much wider field of applications of steroids and other types of drugs for those who are using it who are outside the high performance that the WADA Code actually affects, and that is a responsibility much more of the Department of Health, but that is not to shirk our responsibility in DCMS, and you may well be right, Mr Kaufman, that there ought to be more liaison between the Department of Health and the DCMS, but we have responsibility for the application of the WADA code and that is for elite athletes.

  Q270 Chairman: I accept that totally, but the more I read about this, and there has been an extremely interesting very long article in the New Yorker about it a few weeks ago that basically this is a may be multi-billion pound industry now which is based upon deception of the public in relation to deceiving them into believing that these supplements can do things for them which they cannot do, that to a large degree, in terms of health enhancement, they are no better than placebos though they may well have adverse consequences in terms of affecting sporting performance?

  Mr Caborn: I think it is, and I think that overall responsibility of this issue in the UK rests with the Food Standards Agency or FSA. I think, Mr Kaufman, you touch a wider subject than we are looking at of how you can get this nation much more active. I do not think there are any quick fixes to that. There will be those who want to put all sorts of opportunities and substances to say how you can reduce—I have already seen that on the question of cholesterol. Can you do a quick fix that you do not have to do the exercise: you can eat as much as you want, take a few pills and you have cracked it. I do not think that is going to be the way forward. When I look at some of the statistics and I see a youngster 30 years ago got 70% more physical activity than a youngster today, then it clearly shows that we need to start getting this nation more active. There will be all sorts of substances and products on the market place to show we can have a quick fix, and that is as much in sport as it is, I think, for the health of the nation as well. The responsibility is not with my Department, DCMS, it is with the FSA.

  Q271 Derek Wyatt: Do you think there could be a role—I am going back to the gyms in both the private and the public sector—for beefing up the trade standards officers and that area to see whether we can attack drugs in that way? I wondered if you had had any conversations there.

  Mr Caborn: No, we have not. I would say, Mr Wyatt, that the area as far as WADA is concerned is dealing with elite athletes. Broadly speaking, we are not talking about those who are going normally to the gyms. That is an issue, but it is not an issue that has been covered by WADA. There is not a lot of work being done in that area, quite honestly, and, as you know, the growth now in particularly the As, Bs and Cs using the gyms and the fitness centres has increased and is increasing at something round about 20% per annum. It is because of this big debate on the whole question of obesity and healthy lifestyles that people are now turning and looking to see how they can factor in more physical activity in their lives and indeed they are moving into the gyms and fitness.

  Q272 Derek Wyatt: Mark Richardson gave quite telling evidence this morning and floated an idea about whether there should be a kite-mark on supplements so that athletes would know that nandrolone, or whatever it was, was in that? Do you think it would be good for the Food Standards Agency to be charged with coming forward with the kite-mark concept?

  Mr Caborn: I think all this is under discussion but it is at a European level. The European Directive (2002/46/EC) on food supplements was adopted in May 2002 and then the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, which implements the European Directive in England, will come into force on 1 August 2005. So the whole question of labelling of food supplements is covered by the European Directives. I think this is an area that is still under some active consideration even though we have got the Directive 46 which has been implemented.

  Q273 Derek Wyatt: But we lost, I think a bronze medal because of Vicks, because he took the American version of Vicks not the Scottish version of Vicks. So surely it would be the IOC through WADA that would determine the supplement so that you could then have a kite-mark that might have the Olympic rings with a kite-mark with it?

  Mr Caborn: I think that is something that one could discuss in terms of the labelling through the European Union, and if they believe that they need to take that to the next stage, into the international level, then again that is an area that ought to be explored, but that is not just an issue for the UK, I think that is one movement—if you are going to get that type of consensus at the international level, then we have to move incrementally through Europe into the international arena.

  Q274 Derek Wyatt: Most of the evidence so far seems to suggest that they would like the testing of drugs to be independent. The only group that seems not to want to be independent is football. We are baffled to understand why it is that most of the other senior sports are happy with being independent but football is not. Can you explain to us why they are so keen to keep it in-house?

  Mr Caborn: I do not know where that is in terms of in-house. They may want that but in terms of the testing they are signed up to the code and, indeed, UK Sport have got responsibility for that and, indeed, the independent testing goes on.

  Q275 Derek Wyatt: I am sorry, it is the in-house hearings. I did not explain that very well?

  Mr Caborn: Sorry. Again, what we have said to the FA, and this is now under review since a particularly high profile case—the FA have now undertaken to do a complete review of the whole of their procedures, and it would probably be useful to wait and see the outcome of that. They have brought third-party people in and Lord Coe has also been advising the FA in terms of the procedures and that is still to come out, so I think there may well be some changes.

  Q276 Chris Bryant: Can I check, Minister, because you seemed a bit ambiguous earlier, about no notice out of competition testing. Do you believe all sports in the UK should have a full no notice out of competition testing regime?

  Mr Caborn: Absolutely. I think that one of the more potent weapons that you have in here is that it is random; and no notice should be given.

  Q277 Chris Bryant: So the fact that only five sports in the UK do have that regime shows that we have got quite a long way to go?

  Mr Caborn: That is correct.

  Q278 Chris Bryant: How are we going to get there?

  Mr Caborn: Because that is the instruction, well, not instruction but in fact the discussion we will have with UK Sport to have that responsibility. It has just been said to me that the WADA Code very clearly stipulates that, and nearly all the governing bodies have now signed up to WADA and, in fact, that is part of signing up to WADA.

  Q279 Chris Bryant: Out of competition testing in many cases does not include what are termed recreational drugs, prohibited substances, substances that are prohibited under the law like marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines and narcotics, such as morphine. Do you believe there should be a full testing the regime for them as well?

  Mr Caborn: Again, that is a discussion within WADA. WADA do not demand that. In fact they have said that they will only test for recreational drugs in competition, and that is a view that they have taken, and it is one that we support, because there can be incidents of unfair advantage or indeed danger to other sports people if they were taking recreational drugs in competition. Out of competition, then WADA have said that is not a prerequisite for testing out of competition.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 15 July 2004