The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood) (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, for securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their valuable contributions. I am grateful to the International Agreements Committee for its excellent work and its report, published on Friday 11 September, on our plans for ratification of this Council of Europe convention. The Government welcome the committee’s scrutiny of this important convention and the opportunity to set out why we consider ratification to be in the UK’s interests. The Government consider the manipulation of sports competitions to be a serious threat to the integrity of sport and fair competition; we agree with every noble Lord who has made that point. It undermines the fundamental principle that sporting outcomes should be determined by ability and performance, and it reduces public confidence in sport as a whole. As the Gambling Commission noted in its evidence to the committee, reports of suspicious betting activity received by its sports betting intelligence unit increased by 28% in 2025 compared with 2024. Although the commission has underlined that increased reporting and monitoring may account for some of this rise, neither it nor the Government is complacent. It is very clear that sports manipulation is an increasingly international issue, as so many noble Lords have remarked. No single country or organisation can tackle these risks alone. The Macolin convention provides a framework for Governments, law enforcement, gambling regulators, sports organisations and betting operators to co-operate, particularly through information sharing and national platforms. Given the increasing importance of international co-operation in tackling these risks, we consider it vital that we now proceed to ratification. As we have heard, the UK is not starting from scratch. We have undertaken a detailed assessment of UK compliance across criminal law, gambling regulation and our operational arrangements. In doing so, we have worked with the Gambling Commission, the devolved Governments, legal advisers and other stakeholders. Our assessment is that the UK’s existing arrangements meet the convention’s requirements. We already have a well-established national platform, centred on the Gambling Commission’s sports betting intelligence unit and supported by the Sports Betting Integrity Forum. Indeed, the Gambling Commission worked with the Council of Europe between 2010 and 2014 to shape the development of the Macolin convention, with the Council of Europe using our national platform as the template. Our existing legal framework also provides for relevant conduct to be addressed through a range of offences, including cheating at gambling, fraud, bribery and corruption. Ratification therefore does not require new primary or secondary legislation or the creation of a new UK body. The value of ratifying the Macolin convention is therefore about formalising and strengthening the UK’s existing international position. The UK already co-operates internationally on this area through networks including the Council of Europe’s Group of Copenhagen. However, as we have heard, ratification would give the UK a formal role in the convention’s follow-up committee, allowing us to contribute to policy recommendations, share expertise and help to shape the international response to sports manipulation. As the Gambling Commission has underlined to the committee, ratification should help increase the speed of international intelligence sharing and support the development of a more co-ordinated approach on international enforcement. That is a key area for improvement, which the Gambling Commission highlighted in its evidence. Ratification will therefore build on the strong foundations that already exist and strengthen our ability to work with international partners to tackle this global threat. The committee’s scrutiny has also tested whether our existing arrangements are sufficient across the UK—this is an important point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—and whether there are areas where further work may be needed. We have engaged with the devolved Governments as part of the ratification process. In Northern Ireland, where gambling is subject to a separate framework, we have engaged directly with the Department for Communities and the Gambling Commission, including on how this relates to the Northern Ireland Executive. Our collective assessment is that existing arrangements are sufficient. Specifically, Article 169 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 makes cheating at gambling or enabling or assisting another to cheat an offence. We have established that no substantive Northern Ireland-specific issue has been identified that would prevent ratification. We have also carefully considered the question of criminal enforcement. The Gambling Commission has referred 19 cases for enforcement action under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 over the last three years, with several investigations ongoing, including formal prosecutions as part of Operation Scott. There has been one successful prosecution under Section 42, concluded in 2015. I know this is a point that several noble Lords raised. It is important, however, that Section 42 is understood in the context of the wider criminal framework. Relevant cases may also involve offences such as fraud, bribery or corruption, and enforcement necessarily involves the Gambling Commission working alongside law enforcement and prosecution partners. We have also considered the convention’s provisions on criminal jurisdiction. As we noted to the committee, following detailed consideration of the legal position, we intend to make a reservation in respect of Article 19(1)(d) on jurisdiction. This reservation is specifically allowed through Article 37 of the convention. We are confident that relevant authorities throughout the United Kingdom will continue to pursue potential breaches of the criminal law in the context of sports competitions with vigour and seriousness. The reservation simply reflects the reality that in a limited number of cases, the relevant criminal offence may not have extraterritorial application, or there is an insufficiently close link between the criminal activity and the UK. As such, this reservation is consistent with the approach taken by nine other signatory countries. I am not sure that I have addressed that question adequately, but I will be happy to take up any points that I have not sufficiently addressed after this debate. Finally, we recognise that the threats posed by competition manipulation will continue to evolve. Online and in-play betting, as well as new betting products, are changing the environment in which sports competition manipulation takes place.