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.
| 
