House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Sixth Report

5 Elite sporting performance

151. There will be many ways of gauging the success of the Games. In the short term, people will judge the Games by not just the quality of the spectacle but also the logistics: transport to and from the Games, ticketing and security. In the longer term, the Games will be assessed on their legacy value, in terms of both participation in sport and local regeneration. But, to some extent, the public will remember the Games for legendary sporting performances, particularly by British athletes.[284]

152. Public funding to support elite sport is channelled through UK Sport, a non-departmental body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. UK Sport told us that it was responsible for "leading sport in the UK to world class success" by working in partnership with national governing bodies in Olympic and Paralympic sport and others. UK Sport funds sports (through national governing bodies), individual athletes (through awards covering sporting and living costs) and the development of capacity to host major international sporting events. It targets resources and activity primarily at those sports and athletes capable of delivering medal-winning performances. Individual sports are allocated funding through the World Class Performance Programme, the amount determined by a formula that includes results from the previous Games and current rankings as well as future medal potential.[285]

153. Two other bodies play a major part in preparing athletes for competition at the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games: the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the British Paralympic Association (BPA). The BOA is recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the national Olympic committee for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, supporting the IOC in promoting Olympic ideals. Funded entirely from commercial sponsorship and fundraising income, its role with regard to sporting performance is to select (in conjunction with sports national governing bodies), prepare and lead British athletes at the summer, winter and youth Olympic Games. This task includes "delivery of extensive elite level support services to Britain's Olympic athletes and their national governing bodies throughout each Olympic cycle to assist them in their preparations for, and performance at, the Games".[286]

154. The British Paralympic Association's role is to select, prepare, enter, fund and manage Britain's teams at the Paralympic Games and the Winter Paralympic Games.[287]

155. UK Sport receives both Exchequer and Lottery funding. After London had won the right to host the Games, UK Sport submitted to the Treasury a range of options for future funding, indicating for each option what it believed could be achieved. In the 2006 Budget, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that elite sport would receive an extra £200 million in Exchequer funding, to add to £300 million to be invested from the Lottery and to be matched by £100 million to be raised from the private sector. The total funding therefore available to UK Sport from 2006-07 to 2012-13 for grants to national governing bodies and for personal awards to athletes under the World Class Performance Programme will be approximately £600 million (assuming that the full £100 million from commercial sponsorship is secured).[288] A further £100 million will be available to UK Sport for structures and initiatives supporting the World Class Performance Programme, such as the English Institute for Sport and coaching programmes. The Department told us that the additional investment had enabled UK Sport to provide financial support to more Olympic and Paralympic sports.[289]

Setting medal targets

156. Underlying UK Sport's submission to the Treasury for extra funding in the period covering the 2008 and 2012 Games was a set of soft targets for performance, or "aspirations". Targets are a measure of return against investment and provide a benchmark to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to assess whether grant aid has been well spent. They also provide an incentive. Mr Boardman, representing British Cycling, told us that "if you set out a stall to achieve something, then you are more likely to achieve that".[290]

157. The aspirations underlying UK Sport's submission to the Treasury were for the GB Olympic team to achieve eighth place in the medals table at the Beijing Games in 2008 and fourth place in the London 2012 medals table, and for the Paralympic team to be placed second in Beijing and to retain that second place in London "whilst aiming for the top spot".[291] UK Sport calculates that eighth place in the Olympics is likely to require 35 medals, of which 12 would need to be gold. It also believes that some 60 medals, including 16 to 18 gold medals, would be needed to secure fourth place in the London 2012 Olympics medals table. Formal medal targets for Beijing will be set by the end of March 2008, taking into account recent performance. Formal medal targets for London will not be set before 2011.[292]

158. The BOA told us that it had been "primarily responsible for driving the medal target" for the British team at the London Olympics. It had called a meeting of all national governing bodies and elite sport agencies only days after the bid had been won, and an agreement had been reached that "it was right and proper that […] we should aspire to be the best we could be in the context of hosting the Games in 2012, and with this in mind the target was set for fourth place".[293]

159. We were astonished to hear from the British Paralympic Association (BPA) that it had not been involved in setting the target for performance by the GB Paralympic team at the London Games in 2012. The BPA described the view that first place in the medals table was attainable because second place had been achieved previously and because funding had since increased as being "simplistic" and "neither sustainable nor defensible"; and it warned that such an expectation could actually devalue achievement and demotivate future participants.[294] The BPA's position is that an aspiration to remain a "top five nation with an overall aspiration of finishing in the top three" was commensurate with the scale of the UK in Paralympic terms.[295]

Indicators for future performance

160. Performance at recent Olympic Games suggests that the aspiration towards eighth place at the Beijing in 2008 is ambitious; the aspiration towards fourth place in London 2012 might appear even rash. The UK was placed 36th at the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 and 10th in Sydney in 2000 (with 28 medals). Although the British team finished in 10th place in the medals table at the Athens Olympic Games in 2004, winning 30 medals (nine of which were gold) that was achieved through success across a narrow base of sports, with the majority of medals won in sailing, rowing, cycling and equestrian eventing. Some of the winning margins were very slim indeed: Lord Moynihan told us that the combined winning margin for five of the gold medals won by members of the British team in Athens in 2004 had been 0.545 seconds.[296]

161. The Chairman of UK Athletics accepted that two particular performances by the GB athletics team in Athens had "acted as something of a figleaf" for what had been, overall, a disappointing Games for British athletes, and he noted that it did not bode well for the future.[297] British Swimming likewise acknowledged that the final medal haul for the British swimming team in Athens in 2004—just two bronze medals—had been "disappointing"; but it observed that performance in Athens was nonetheless an improvement on that in Sydney in 2000, when no medals of any sort had been won by the Olympic swimming team. It argued that, on the basis of an in-depth analysis of results at Athens, the swimming team as a whole had "performed" and that it had been "more competitive, with more athletes reaching finals".[298]

162. Medal table placings are of course led by the number of gold medals won. Abundant success in winning second or third place does not in itself bring about a high ranking in the final medals table. The Chairman of UK Athletics said that a medals table led by gold medal rankings "is not a very elegant measure" and is a "very narrow way to judge the success of Olympic sports".[299]

163. Despite the patchy performance in Athens in 2004, there are some promising signs for the future. Overall performance by British athletes in Olympic disciplines at senior level during 2007 was strong: 41 medals were won in World Championship competition, 11 of which were gold.[300] Mr Keen, Head of Performance at UK Sport, told us that it presented "a very positive scenario" and that the position in the lead-up to the Beijing Games was "considerably stronger" than at the equivalent point before the Athens Olympics in 2004.[301]

164. There was also a degree of optimism for the future among witnesses from governing bodies. UK Athletics has streamlined the number of athletes which it funds at the highest level, from "a couple of hundred" four or five years ago to "just over 40" in late 2007.[302] It believed that the more exacting and focused policy was enabling athletes to start to reap rewards, as had been demonstrated by an above-target performance achieved by a young team at the World Championships in Osaka in 2007.[303] British Cycling considers that it has "genuine prospects" in nine of the eighteen medal opportunities in cycling disciplines at Beijing and "outside chances" in four others. With regard to performance at the London Games in 2012, British Cycling pointed out that the GB cycling team's junior and under-23 squads had "dominated the World Championship at their respective levels" in 2006 and 2007, something which augured well for 2012.[304] We note the outstanding performance by British cyclists at the World Track Cycling Championships held in Manchester in March 2008, with nine of the 18 gold medals being won by British competitors.

165. British Swimming gave a more measured assessment. It does not expect a major medal haul in Beijing—indeed it said that it was facing a "massive challenge"—but it aims to win four medals, including one gold. It maintained that the measures of success would be "more swimmers in Olympic finals and performing to their potential".[305] Its ambitions for performance in London in 2012 are higher, with an aim to "deliver the best ever performance by British Swimming in the history of the modern Olympic Games and Paralympic Games", with the British Olympic team being placed in the top five.[306] We note the appointment of overseas specialist coaching staff for divers as well as the steps taken to improve coaching provision for both synchronised swimming and water polo. We also note the opinion of British Swimming that there were signs of exceptional younger talent with tremendous potential in diving.[307]

166. The UK has a proud record of success at Paralympic Games, having been placed second in the final medals table in both Sydney and Athens. British Cycling pointed out that the GB Paralympic cycling team had headed the medals table at World Championship level during 2007 and said that it "would be seeking to repeat that outcome in Beijing" in 2008.[308]

167. Given the mixed record at recent Olympic Games and uncertainties about whether the Paralympic team would be able to maintain the high rankings won at recent Paralympic Games, we invited the Chair of UK Sport to justify the apparently highly ambitious "aspirations" which underlay the bid to the Treasury. She described the aspirational goal for the London 2012 Games as a "stretch target" but nonetheless a realistic one which UK Sport was confident would be achieved. She reminded us that performance by British sportsmen and women in top-tier events during 2007 had been good with impressive results being achieved not just by sports with a track record of high-level success but also by "newer, emerging sports" such as boxing and archery, or sports which had suffered a period in the doldrums, such as judo.[309]

168. UK Sport described its efforts to drive up performance, including its new monitoring and evaluation programme—Mission 2012—designed to help sports "analyse their performance on a quarterly basis and capture the most accurate picture available of the challenges faced and any barriers to success". Each sport will evaluate progress, allocate an overall "traffic light" colour status for its performance programme, and develop an action plan for dealing with any issues that "threaten their ability to deliver". Each evaluation will be analysed by UK Sport; any "issues or disagreements" will be referred to Olympic or Paralympic Performance Panels as appropriate.[310] UK Sport described Mission 2012 as a "cultural shift for an organisation like UK Sport".

169. The BOA echoed the positive note sounded by UK Sport. On the strength of results from World Championships in 2005 and 2006, it argued that, had the Olympic Games been staged in either of those years, Great Britain would have finished in seventh place. It was confident that fourth place in the London Olympics was "still achievable and entirely appropriate".[311]

170. Other witnesses were more cautious. Mr Sparkes, Chief Executive of British Swimming, observed that competition is becoming ever tighter, with the United States renascent in swimming, and Japan, China and Korea all coming to the fore.[312] Mr Boardman, a former Olympic cycling gold medallist and now Director of Coaching and Olympic Programmes for British Cycling, told us that the overall targets of eighth place in 2008 and fourth place in 2012 were "very challenging", adding that "I do think they are achievable but it is going to be quite close, frankly"; and he suggested that there was an over-reliance upon the cycling, sailing and rowing teams to win medals.[313]

171. Performance by other nations in disability sport is also becoming significantly stronger. Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson told us in October 2005 that there were major changes afoot in the number of countries competing in Paralympic Games and in the quality of their athletes. Over 160 nations will be competing in the Beijing Paralympic Games, compared to approximately 120 in Sydney in 2000.[314] A particularly strong challenge is expected, for instance, from China in Beijing and at future Games.[315] Dame Tanni concluded that "if we want to carry on and maintain that level of success, some of it does come down to funding […] but it is also about inclusion in governing bodies, inclusion within the mainstream structures, and making sure we get it right at school level".[316] The Chief Executive of the British Paralympic Association made a similar point in evidence in December 2007, saying that it was not so much investment in elite Paralympic athletes which would bring about a significant difference in prospects for performance but a greater concentration upon potential. He told us that "there is very little going on in schools for young athletes [with disabilities]" and that there were very few sports which had instituted long-term development programmes for disabled athletes. The result was "a paucity of young talent coming through […] the pipeline".[317]

172. For once, lack of money at elite level may not be the issue. We note that representatives of national sports governing bodies expressed no dissatisfaction in evidence to us about the level of funding available from UK Sport for elite development. Mr Warner, Chairman of UK Athletics, said that he was "comfortable that UK Sport are funding us to have the right amount of resource and the right locations to do the work we have to do";[318] and Mr Mason, Director of World Class Operations at British Swimming, said that "funding in the last couple of years in particular really does give us a chance to compete with the best in the world".[319] Lord Coe described the funding now available for elite level sport as being "unprecedented".[320] It should not be forgotten, however, that talent emerges from the grassroots: a talented sprinter or swimmer is likely to have excelled at school and will almost certainly have developed at club level before becoming eligible for elite support. If the necessary facilities are lacking at community level as, in the case of 50-metre swimming pools, they clearly are, some talent will never get the chance to compete at top-flight events.

173. We do not see a clear rationale for concluding that the performance by the UK Olympic team at Beijing (or indeed in London in 2012) is likely to outshine by any significant margin performance by the UK in recent Olympic Games. We acknowledge, however, that there were good performances by sportsmen and women representing the UK at World Championship level in 2007 and that there is distinct promise for the future in certain sports. While we believe that UK Sport's aspirations for performance by British athletes at the London 2012 Olympic Games may prove too optimistic, we strongly welcome the significant increase in funding which was awarded as a result of those aspirations. On balance, we believe that the very ambitious aims for performance in the London 2012 Olympic Games will be good for British elite sport.

174. We are not persuaded, however, that the aspiration of second place for the Paralympic team in London in 2012 "whilst aiming for the top spot" is well-judged. While we have no doubt that there will be outstanding individual performances by Paralympic athletes in Beijing and in London, there is little or no evidence to suggest that the overall level of performance is likely to be higher than in 2004. The strength of competition at Paralympic level is intensifying, but the structures which would allow the British Paralympic team to keep pace, by providing a clear pathway for the development of potential, appear not to be in place.

Private sector sponsorship for UK Sport

175. The Financial Statement and Budget Report 2006 announced that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and UK Sport would bring forward proposals in the Pre-Budget Report for "levering in" an additional £100 million of commercial sponsorship.[321] In fact, it was not until October 2007 that an invitation to tender was invited from parties interested in acting as a fundraising partner.[322]

176. Given that LOCOG is already seeking up to £650 million in sponsorship from the private sector, and given that the BOA is itself funded entirely from the private sector, we asked LOCOG whether there was a danger that too many bodies were "fishing in the same pool". LOCOG agreed that there was potential for "confusion" in the "related opportunities" but maintained that UK Sport had been "extremely helpful" in consulting regularly with LOCOG and in seeking a way forward which would not damage LOCOG's fund-raising efforts.[323] The Chair of UK Sport told us that UK Sport had held "long discussions" with LOCOG on the "very busy marketplace" of private sector sponsorship and that, as a result, UK Sport "had listened and respectfully worked in partnership" with LOCOG, which was now very supportive of the direction which UK Sport was taking.[324] LOCOG confirmed that this was an accurate summary.[325] However, we established that no private sector sponsor of the elite sport development programme operated by UK Sport will be able to cite an association with the London 2012 Games, in order to protect the interests of LOCOG's sponsors.[326] LOCOG articulated clearly the difficulty facing the Government and UK Sport, namely, defining precisely what it is that they are selling to a sponsor.[327]

177. We questioned the Chair of UK Sport on whether she was confident that the sum could be raised. She was guarded, saying only that "I would like to sit here and say I am highly confident. I would like to think that it will be raised". She warned that "without that £100 million, many of the ambitions we are talking about will be difficult to achieve".[328] We note that the Committee of Public Accounts concluded that it would be "challenging" to raise the sum;[329] and the National Audit Office has since warned that, unless the money is raised very rapidly, it may become available too late in the Olympic cycle to make a significant difference to the medal chances of the GB team in 2012.[330]

178. On 22 January, the Minister with responsibility for sport announced in oral evidence to the Committee that Fast Track had been appointed as a fundraising partner.[331] Given that DCMS and Fast Track are still in discussion on how to raise the money, it is too early to assess whether Fast Track's strategy will succeed; but we fear that the Government's policy of requiring £100 million for elite sport to be raised from the private sector may turn out to be over-ambitious, especially as no private sector sponsor will be able to cite any association with the London 2012 Games, in order to protect LOCOG's sponsors. The effect is to introduce an element of uncertainty into a long-term funding programme, hobbling financial planning. We believe that it will turn out to be a misjudgement and an unwelcome diversion of effort.

"Sporting Giants"

179. In March 2007, UK Sport launched "Sporting Giants", a campaign to seek out "tall young athletes" to be trained as potential members of Olympic handball and volleyball teams (both sports which are newly funded by UK Sport) and to identify potential athletes for rowing. Neither handball nor volleyball has a tradition of excellence in the UK; yet, by virtue of being host nation, the UK qualifies automatically for each team sport. The British Olympic Association's position, however, is that it will not exercise the right to take up a quota place to enter a team that has no prospects of acquitting itself well.[332]

180. The initial "Sporting Giants" press release generated over 4,800 applications. Approximately 4,000 people satisfied the initial range of criteria, and mass testing of applicants was completed in December 2007. The outcome is that 34 rowers, 11 handball players and seven volleyball players have been "successfully integrated" into British squads.[333] UK Sport described Sporting Giants as "an extremely cost-effective programme". Other than the staff costs of the three UK Sport staff running the programme, the only cost to UK Sport was the £15,000 cost of the initial media drive to create awareness, led by Sir Steve Redgrave.[334] The costs of training and development are borne by national governing bodies from their World Class Performance Programme funding.

181. We queried with UK Sport whether this was not a rather speculative project, at odds with UK Sport's focus on directing investment towards athletes that have the potential for success at the highest level. The Chair of UK Sport defended the initiative, saying that it had identified a lot of "dormant talent" among, for instance, university students, some of whom displayed physical skills which had "amazed" world class coaches.[335] She also argued that "Sporting Giants" had offered an alternative sporting future to a number of athletes who were beginning to question whether they could progress in their initial, main discipline.[336] We note her observation to us in 2005 that "in the past we have invested in athletes who have arrived with us as opposed to going and finding athletes".[337]

182. We support the concept of looking for talent rather than simply waiting for it to appear. If over-used, however, the approach could give an impression of desperation and could be open to ridicule. We endorse the policy of the British Olympic Association not to enter teams for competition at the London 2012 Games simply for the sake of exercising the rights of the host nation.

Responsibility for performance

183. Unlike World Championships or other top-tier sporting events, selection of British teams for Olympic Games and Paralympic Games is not a matter solely for national governing bodies of sport, whose development of talent is supported largely through public funds, channelled through UK Sport. The British Olympic Association also plays a leading role in selecting, preparing and leading British athletes at the summer, winter and youth Olympic Games. The British Paralympic Association selects, prepares, enters, funds and manages Britain's teams at the Paralympic Games and the Winter Paralympic Games.

184. In general, the various roles in the preparation and selection of teams to participate in Olympic Games and Paralympic Games are understood and respected. Some friction has arisen, however, as a result of the BOA's establishment of an elite performance programme for individual athletes, under the leadership of former rugby union coach Sir Clive Woodward. On the face of it, the establishment of such a programme by the BOA appears to be in direct competition with the publicly funded World Class Performance programme operated by UK Sport. It could also be seen as being in conflict with a statement by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that "the BOA has no role in the preparation of the athletes in the years building up to an Olympic Games".[338]

185. The BOA told us that its Elite Performance Programme "places the athlete and coach at the centre of a support network made up of leading specialists from areas including kinesiology, physiology, nutrition and performance analysis" and that "a unique communication and analysis system will ensure the athlete receives 24/7 support from the network".[339] The programme was initially trialled on an amateur golfer; and a pilot programme has now begun with British Judo. The BOA expects that approximately 30 athletes will take part in the programme in the lead-up to 2012. Decisions on which athletes are to be involved are to be taken by the BOA in conjunction with the Performance Director for the relevant sport's national governing body.[340] The BOA maintains that it works closely with the Government to ensure that support services from the two sources "are complementary and not overlapping".[341] The Chair of the BOA told us that the programme was "highly scientific" and "wholly complementary", and he argued that it took away risks and "the elements which cause greater uncertainty about an athlete's performance at the very top level".[342]

186. The assumed budget for the programme is £150,000 per year per athlete, with the costs being met by the BOA through funding from the commercial sector.[343]

187. The BOA programme received some support but not wholehearted endorsement from the three sports national governing bodies which gave oral evidence to us. British Swimming told us that it was "interested to listen to Sir Clive's ideas because clearly he may have something that is worth listening to".[344] On the other hand, Mr Boardman, representing British Cycling, told us that British Cycling had invited Sir Clive to present some of his ideas but that there had appeared to be little which he could offer which cycling was not already receiving.[345] UK Athletics reserved its position, suggesting that Sir Clive's programme might possibly have some impact on athletics in the future; but it spoke of "concerns" about the integration of the programme into the UK Sport-funded elite development programme, saying that it did not wish to see a duplication of effort. It was heartened, however, by the BOA's assurance that its involvement in each individual sport would be at the discretion of each sport's Performance Director.[346]

188. Gerry Sutcliffe MP, the DCMS Minister with responsibility for sport, affirmed that he saw the roles of the British Olympic Association and UK Sport in preparing high-performance athletes as being "complementary", and he was satisfied that the BOA and UK Sport were "working very well together" even if there had been "hiccups" along the way.[347]

189. It will be some time before an informed assessment can be made of the merits of the British Olympic Association's Elite Performance Programme. We are concerned that the decision to set up a scheme separate to that run by UK Sport suggests a lack of faith in existing structures, despite the Programme's "complementary" label. We would feel able to be more supportive had the BOA worked together with UK Sport to improve existing performance programmes.

Training for pistol shooters

190. One of the effects of firearms legislation passed by Parliament in 1997 has been to prevent sportsmen and women in three shooting disciplines from training in the UK. When the Minister for the Olympics gave evidence to the Committee in October 2005 as Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, she said that "we have taken the view that there should not be an exemption at this point in the seven years between now and 2012", although she added that policy would be kept under review.[348]

191. In recent months, signs of a change of heart have emerged. The Department indicated in November 2007 that "colleagues at the Home Office have recently secured agreement in principle from the Ministry of Defence on use of their ranges by a small squad of elite pistol shooters", and that "to enable this to take place, the Home Secretary will need to use her powers under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968".[349] Discussions on the detail of the agreement were still under way in January 2008.[350]

192. The DCMS Minister with responsibility for sport told us that the first step was to enable pistol shooters to train in the UK in the lead-up to the 2012 Games; training for subsequent Games was "an issue that we will have to discuss further".[351] We welcome the progress made so far in discussions within Government on enabling pistol shooters to train in the UK before the London 2012 Games take place. The UK has a history of performing well in shooting disciplines at Olympic Games. We encourage the Department to seek agreement in principle for a permanent exemption from firearms legislation, allowing talented pistol shooters to train in the UK under tightly controlled conditions.

Athletes with an intellectual disability

193. One distinct issue which was brought to our attention was the position of athletes who have an intellectual disability and who are at present banned from participating in Paralympic Games. The ban stems from a decision by the International Paralympic Committee, taken after it had been established that the Spanish basketball team competing at the Paralympic Games in Sydney in 2000 had included members falsely claiming to suffer from an intellectual disability.

194. The consequences of the ban are far-reaching. Grant aid for the development of elite athletes' talent is predicated on their potential to participate in competition at the highest level, namely Olympic or Paralympic Games. As a result of the ban, neither the national governing body for athletes with a learning disability—UKSA[352]—nor individual athletes can receive grant aid for performance development from UK Sport. Few athletes with a learning disability can afford to cover the costs of training from their own resources, and little, therefore, is being done to improve their performance. In theory, such athletes can compete in world-class events not held under the auspices of the International Paralympic Committee; but, to do so, they need to undergo the process of registration and certification drawn up by the international governing body for athletes with a learning disability, INAS-FID.[353] The UK Sports Association (UKSA) pointed out that the cost of this process ranged from £300 to £1,000 for each athlete, beyond the means of most. Because of the decline in grant aid which UKSA is receiving, its resources are dwindling and it is no longer in a position to pay for athletes' registration and certification.

195. The UK Sports Association for People with Learning Disabilities argued strongly in evidence to us that the ban should be lifted without delay, as athletes genuinely suffering from an intellectual disability were being denied the chance to take part in competition with their peers. We were told that the former Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had been asked to support the ending of the ban but that her response had been "evasive".[354]

196. We raised the matter with witnesses. LOCOG told us that it was "absolutely behind" efforts to resolve the problem in time for the 2012 Games, and it recognised the need for resolution well in advance of competition.[355] The British Paralympic Association (BPA) said that it believed "wholeheartedly" that athletes with an intellectual disability should be part of the Games but only under "fair and consistent rules which are comparable to those of the other disability organisations". The BPA had urged the International Paralympic Committee to set a target of 2012 for readmission and had urged that the decision should be taken soon so as to enable athletes to train and receive development support.[356] The Minister agreed that the issue needed to be addressed, although he added that "it may mean that we have to look for some investment in trying to sort out the definitions".[357] His impression, however, was that there was a general willingness to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

197. We accept that action needed to be taken in the light of flagrant abuse of the rules of sporting competition. However, the ban must one day be lifted. We note the statement by the British Paralympic Association that the ban will need to be lifted by January 2009 if athletes with an intellectual disability are to be equipped to compete in the 2012 Paralympic Games.[358] It is unfair that athletes with a genuine learning disability who have reached their peak in performance since 2000 have had no chance to compete at Paralympic Games and only limited opportunities to compete at the highest level in other theatres. Their chance will not come again. The ban imposed by the International Paralympic Committee is no longer just a punishment: it now appears discriminatory. We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should make representations to the International Paralympic Committee that to prolong the ban would be totally unacceptable and that the time has come to show flexibility and to take the steps necessary to enable athletes with a learning disability to compete at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012.

284 See Mr Clegg Q 239 Back

285 Ev 29 Back

287 London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Annual Report, DCMS, January 2008, page 31 Back

288 Budget 2006, HC 968, Session 2005-06, paragraph 6.73. Back

289 Ev 126 Back

290 Q 1 Back

291 Ev 29 Back

292 Ev 29 Back

293 Q 220 Back

294 Ev 67 Back

295 Q 220 Back

296 Q 224 Back