| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Moynihan: I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say on the subject of anti-doping, and in particular to his view that there may be human rights issues such that the Government would not wish to intervene. Of course, that is diametrically at odds with the overall position taken by UK Sport on anti-doping. A football club is a private club yet, to be in receipt of international recognition by the International Olympic Committee, for example, it is incumbent on the FA to accept principles laid down by WADA. Without accepting those principles, it would not be possible for a country to submit for consideration a football team to compete in the Athens games this summer.
We are talking about an important laboratory. The interesting development since consideration of the Bill in another place was the decision taken by the Government that it should become part of the wider UK Sport testing for humans. That decision opens it up to a whole series of important questions on how that function will relate to the British Horseracing Board, what the structure will be, how it will be funded and how it will be organised. That comes within a highly topical and controversial area of government intervention; namely, the extent to which they should determine the anti-doping regulations in the country for sport in its wider sense.
A Minister says that that is not the business of government, but I argue very strongly that it is. Indeed, it is incumbent on the Government to recognise that they have signed up to the WADA code, which at its inception focused on three critical issues—that any anti-doping agency should be transparent, accountable and independent. In other words, one should not be in a position whereby the people who own racehorses oversee their testing the following day. For an anti-doping agency to be effective, it has to work independent of owners or those who could be conflicted by virtue of having another role in racing.
Exactly the same logic applies within UK Sport. I hope that, so far as UK Sport is concerned, the Government will move to a position in which it will simply not be possible for a football club to determine who tests or is present for the testing of a footballer. We had an absurd situation in December last year, given that we are meant to have an independent anti-doping agency. It determined that Rio Ferdinand would be tested and the independent testers went along to Manchester United's training ground, but were not allowed to carry out their work of getting on to the ground, finding Rio Ferdinand and taking his test. Had they done so, we would have avoided a great deal of the problems that have subsequently occurred.
The point applies to all sports including racing. If the Government are to continue to adhere to their commitments to the World Anti-Doping Agency, to which they have signed up, those key principles of transparency, independence and accountability must be fulfilled in all work undertaken by the anti-doping agency.
The amendment is probing. We shall refer to the issues in greater detail in a moment. I hoped that the amendment would elicit from the Government an absolute commitment to those three principles, and then an explanation of how the Government best saw their being adopted by the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory, for tests not only on horsing but on athletes. I would very much like the Minister to respond to those comments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A large number of the comments that the noble Lord has made are very wide of his amendment. I have responded to the amendment, and I think that I should be content with that. Some of what he talked about was nothing to do with anything in the Bill, let alone the amendment, but if there is anything of wider significance that is nevertheless the subject of the Bill I shall write to him about it.
Lord Moynihan: I am very happy to continue this dialogue, because it absolutely goes to the heart of my amendment. I thought long and hard about how best to draft an amendment that covered the fact that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory was about to test on humans. The moment that it does so, it will be within the remit of UK Sport's anti-doping policy. My amendment states very clearly,
- "at end insert . . . shall specify that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory shall not be able to carry out drug tests on anything other than horses and dogs".
It is therefore perfectly legitimate to elicit a response from the Government on that, because UK Sport has gone to the World Anti-Doping Agency specifically within the terms of Part 2 to enable the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory, by name, to test on humans and thus on something other than dogs or horses. Therefore it is completely reasonable to ask the Minister to give an explanation of why he believes that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory should be involved in such testing, and how it will work managerially if he believes so. I am sure that he does; I do as well. We need to know about the relationship between UK Sport and the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory on, for example, the prioritisation of samples, as well as the overall management. That is what I sought to elicit from the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will be the responsibility of the new owners of the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory to know what they can do with their laboratory. That is the issue raised by the
amendment. The amendment and the Bill do not raise the legitimacy of any testing; that comes completely outwith our considerations.
Lord Moynihan: I very much regret that the Minister has been unable to respond to the questions that I have put to him in this context, and I shall return to them at a later stage of our deliberations. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 38:
- Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I do not think that we will make much further progress than we did on Amendment No. 37 if the Minister's responses are similar. Members of the Committee will be aware of my commitment to drug-free sport, and the view of Her Majesty's Opposition that there should be an independent anti-doping agency. The Horseracing Forensic Laboratory was mentioned at Second Reading, and I am glad that there is a chance to focus discussion on this important amendment. However, at this stage I do not intend to speak at length, as I would have done had I had an acceptable response from the Minister to Amendment No. 37.
All that I shall say is that I hope that a few key principles of the Government's anti-doping policy can be placed on record at this stage. I hope that the Minister will agree with three points: that it is fundamental to the integrity of sport and fair competition, including racing, that sport remain drug-free; that the present situation on drug testing in sport is riddled with conflicts of interest and needs to be changed—the Government have recently commissioned outside consultants on the subject, who have fudged the issue; and that there is a need for the HFL and the British Horseracing Board to adopt an anti-doping policy that is independent, transparent and accountable. I would be grateful if the Minister accepted that there should be a separation of powers between the judiciary, executive and legislature from the work of the laboratories.
Perhaps it would be a little unfair of me—it is not often that I state that—to press the Minister on those points at this stage, in view of his response to Amendment No. 37. If he wishes to hold fire and keep his powder dry until we return to the matter, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, having made clear
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in the usual position of responding to amendments, although I can hardly respond to the speech, which was nothing to do with the amendment. However, I do my best.
Let me make it clear, in response to the amendment, that no one in government has suggested that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory might be transferred to UK Sport or the successor company. That is not the Government's intention. Although we have not reached a final decision on that, our approach has been to look to the British Horseracing Board, as the governing body of the sport, to be the most appropriate home for many of the assets held at present by the Levy Board. The BHB is the guardian of the sport.
The other part of the amendment would defeat the Government's policy objectives—I do not think that the noble Lord is disputing them—and would involve the Government withdrawing from a modest form of statutory involvement for which there is no charge on the public purse to another which would involve a charge on the public purse. That seems perverse.
I agree that it is desirable that racing should be drug-free but, beyond that, the noble Lord is asking me to respond in regard to conflicts of interest and whether our consultants fudged issues about the role of the judiciary and the legislature. Such issues are not raised by the amendment.
Lord Moynihan: I completely disagree with the Minister. The issue goes to the centre of the amendment because it questions whether the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory should be transferred to a successor company or, indeed, to UK Sport. It questions the appropriate status for anti-doping within racing.
I was delighted that there was a volte face between Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and that the Government now accept that there is statutory involvement. We did not have that acceptance under my previous amendments, so we are making progress. I was very interested to learn that no final decision has been made. That means that some of the issues are still open for debate and discussion. That was not the case under Amendment No. 37, so good progress has been made.
Even if the Minister thinks he is wide of the mark, I can assure him that he is not. Anti-doping within racing goes to the heart of the Jockey Club rules, the role of the BHB and the work of the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory. What the Minister has failed to grasp—perhaps he has not been briefed on this by his colleagues—is that there are widespread and far-reaching ramifications from this laboratory also being used by UK Sport for humans. I accept that he may not have been briefed on that because the decision was reached only after consideration of the Bill in another place.
As I have pointed out, we will need to consider all these issues in greater depth to ensure that not only is racing drug-free and that we have the best possible anti-doping agency in the country for other sports, but that there are no conflicts of interest and we can work together to ensure that we have achieved an independent, accountable and transparent anti-doping agency for sport in the United Kingdom. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
"( ) In exercising his responsibilities under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory ("the laboratory") is not transferred to the successor company or to UK Sport, and that the laboratory is established as an independent agency with the same aims and purposes as it has at the time at which this Act is passed.
( ) In particular, the agency shall be required to provide a drug testing service to the Jockey Club for samples taken from horses at race meetings for the purposes of the control of doping under the rules of racing and such other drug testing services as the laboratory provides at the time at which this Act is passed.
( ) The Secretary of State may make payments to the agency to ensure that there is no charge to the Jockey Club for the drug testing service provided to it by the agency."
6.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page