International Agreements Committee
Thursday 9th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Well, good morning everyone, and thank you very much for joining this inquiry into the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports competitions, which is better known as the McAllen convention. Particularly relevant in light of all the major sporting fixtures that are going on at the moment around the world. And I'm very pleased and I welcome, on behalf of the committee, are two witnesses today. Moses Saibou, who was a famous former footballer and also now the founder and CEO of Game Changer 360, who brings to this meeting an extremely high degree of understanding of the match fixing problems that he encountered himself, and how we can solve them.
Moses, thank you very much for being with us in person. It's extremely good to have you with us and joined online as Maddalena Diaconu, the associate professor at University of Neuchatel, who has made her business over the last few decades to build a high level of expertise and has contributed significantly to the drafting of this treaty and has a very good understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this. So thank you very much indeed, both of you, for joining us. Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader before joining us.
Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader systems behind it, both as a footballer and since, and I know this will be developed more in our understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this. So thank you very much indeed, both of you. Systems behind it, both as a footballer and since. And I know this will be developed more in our understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this.
So thank you very much indeed, both of you, for joining us. Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader systems behind it, both as a footballer and since, and I know this will be developed more in our discussion, but how you see the relevance of this treaty itself. So I think we accept the fact, and you've been a great advocate of this since the situation of some years ago, of removing or reducing corruption in sport.
But is this treaty a useful way of going about doing that?And again, thank you for joining us and we look forward to hearing your views.
Moses, thank you very much for being with us in person. It's extremely good to have you with us and joined online as Maddalena Diaconu, the associate professor at University of Neuchatel, who has made her business over the last few decades to build a high level of expertise and has contributed significantly to the drafting of this treaty and has a very good understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this. So thank you very much indeed, both of you, for joining us. Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader before joining us.
Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader systems behind it, both as a footballer and since, and I know this will be developed more in our understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this. So thank you very much indeed, both of you. Systems behind it, both as a footballer and since. And I know this will be developed more in our understanding of the legal ramifications of treaties such as this.
So thank you very much indeed, both of you, for joining us. Um, my first question to Moses really is if you could talk briefly about your experience of match fixing, which you've been open about and have written books about and talked about and the broader systems behind it, both as a footballer and since, and I know this will be developed more in our discussion, but how you see the relevance of this treaty itself. So I think we accept the fact, and you've been a great advocate of this since the situation of some years ago, of removing or reducing corruption in sport.
But is this treaty a useful way of going about doing that?And again, thank you for joining us and we look forward to hearing your views.
11:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you for having me. So I think, uh, before I start my journey into professional sports started when I was 16. Um, I was a young boy playing for my school at the time. Uh, I got into Crystal Palace, uh, 16 years old, went through a trial. So this is quite relevant to the conversation we're having today. Um, I never had no education in regards to frameworks, how to deal with certain issues. And from me going to a public school in Croydon to now going to an elite environment, that was quite a shift and a change on the geographical location of where I'm coming from and the community and more importantly, me going into an environment of mentors, structures, big brothers and discipline.
So whilst I had that framework, I was very well endowed to adapting to scenarios. So I'm travelling from London Bridge to East Croydon every day. In a generation where there wasn't any social media. So it was very much an old school stylistic way of how we were able to navigate through London at that time. So it wasn't until I actually left Crystal Palace. I've moved to Lincoln City and at 19 I believe was my first real interaction with life and society outside of London.
So again, you're 19 years old, you're in professional sport, you have various different elements of culture and different teammates. And one thing that was quite common, you don't really know or understand what people are going through. So a teammates introduced me to the world of match fixing for the first time at Lincoln City. And it was a word I've never even heard of. So at that time, I knew morally it was wrong because I'm 19 and more importantly, I just want to play football.
So years later, I found out he had a gambling addiction and everything else. But at the same time, I didn't have the power or the confidence. I'll say to go to Chris Sutton, my first team manager, and say, hey, the teammate that has introduced me to match fixing is the captain. So we turned around at that time and said no in the first instance, but there wasn't any reporting or any tools in place for me to confidently approach anyone within that club and say, hey, I think we have a problem bearing in mind there were 600 €0 in a changing room in Northampton.
So years later I've been let go by Lincoln City. I've dropped down into lower level football. And that structure that I once had at Crystal Palace has gone. It's non-existent. So this was my second interaction with match fixing, where again, a teammate approached me and said, look, we have a game coming up. And more importantly, you want to meet these match fixers. So to go back 2011, you would have seen there was a scandal around Australia and players were moving to Australia and they were caught up in a match fixing ring.
Two years later, I'm now caught up in the same ring. So the second time I've gone ahead with gone and fixed the game. But this was my first real introduction to highly organised crime. And at each and every other layer, as I'm navigating through this journey, this criminal syndicate took me in like a child, if that makes sense. And it really built the same mechanisms that are used in sport teamwork, um, togetherness and a lot of where manipulation actually carried out in the wider world and why it's relevant today.
It's really the nuances of manipulation from a mental and psychological effect. It wasn't violent, it wasn't dangerous. But in what I believe, systematic changes and frameworks need to happen. There needs to be a top down and bottom up approach, which goes into your question around the McCauley convention. Right?So if you look at it from an international point with all the countries ratifying this convention, potentially there isn't enough systematic systematical influence from where we are today in the digital world and a world where young people are the future of this nation, of these countries, and more importantly, the schooling system where this education should actually be taught at the fundamental basis, which is as early as physical education and primary school.
So whilst we can look at manipulation on one end, what does it mean to be integral and have integrity, which is very important. So. That framework isn't really robust and designed whilst you have the Premier League now you can see the World Cup and what's currently happening. That word is something, in my humble opinion, which is actually a tick box. And while that's a tick box and we have the UK, we actually have the opportunity to establish something across the board that includes stake and policy holders as well.
So to answer your question, I believe a lot of where society now sits today. Are we moving with the times rather than thinking where we were 20 years ago?And what I see and the professor, would, would, would, would attest to this is you need to include different stakeholders and different mindsets and different people and act as sport is so sports free for everyone, especially the sport of football. It's a community based game where the language itself should be colocalized the culture and the influence.
We need to look at prisons and systems and see if there's a football or there's sport. People are involved. But more importantly, the weapon you now have in this digital space, you have cryptocurrency technologies, different areas where criminal influences live within our society. And I believe in the strength that we can potentially attain to move forward. We just need to take a really practical look at what this actually means. So for the McCauley convention, is there enough cultural influence from these countries because that kid living in Portugal, in the favelas, or that kid living in south east London were playing the same game, but it's a completely different demographic and mindset.
So if we look at case studies and research, how much of this data and information are we actually getting to understand this human's behaviour, which can include reporting, which can include risk and within that risk and ecosystem, we can actually build framework that actually shows if you have a young Moses at 18, look at his background, look at his family, look at his siblings, what are the influences around him that shape where this opportunity of crime and corruption.
So whilst I had that framework, I was very well endowed to adapting to scenarios. So I'm travelling from London Bridge to East Croydon every day. In a generation where there wasn't any social media. So it was very much an old school stylistic way of how we were able to navigate through London at that time. So it wasn't until I actually left Crystal Palace. I've moved to Lincoln City and at 19 I believe was my first real interaction with life and society outside of London.
So again, you're 19 years old, you're in professional sport, you have various different elements of culture and different teammates. And one thing that was quite common, you don't really know or understand what people are going through. So a teammates introduced me to the world of match fixing for the first time at Lincoln City. And it was a word I've never even heard of. So at that time, I knew morally it was wrong because I'm 19 and more importantly, I just want to play football.
So years later, I found out he had a gambling addiction and everything else. But at the same time, I didn't have the power or the confidence. I'll say to go to Chris Sutton, my first team manager, and say, hey, the teammate that has introduced me to match fixing is the captain. So we turned around at that time and said no in the first instance, but there wasn't any reporting or any tools in place for me to confidently approach anyone within that club and say, hey, I think we have a problem bearing in mind there were 600 €0 in a changing room in Northampton.
So years later I've been let go by Lincoln City. I've dropped down into lower level football. And that structure that I once had at Crystal Palace has gone. It's non-existent. So this was my second interaction with match fixing, where again, a teammate approached me and said, look, we have a game coming up. And more importantly, you want to meet these match fixers. So to go back 2011, you would have seen there was a scandal around Australia and players were moving to Australia and they were caught up in a match fixing ring.
Two years later, I'm now caught up in the same ring. So the second time I've gone ahead with gone and fixed the game. But this was my first real introduction to highly organised crime. And at each and every other layer, as I'm navigating through this journey, this criminal syndicate took me in like a child, if that makes sense. And it really built the same mechanisms that are used in sport teamwork, um, togetherness and a lot of where manipulation actually carried out in the wider world and why it's relevant today.
It's really the nuances of manipulation from a mental and psychological effect. It wasn't violent, it wasn't dangerous. But in what I believe, systematic changes and frameworks need to happen. There needs to be a top down and bottom up approach, which goes into your question around the McCauley convention. Right?So if you look at it from an international point with all the countries ratifying this convention, potentially there isn't enough systematic systematical influence from where we are today in the digital world and a world where young people are the future of this nation, of these countries, and more importantly, the schooling system where this education should actually be taught at the fundamental basis, which is as early as physical education and primary school.
So whilst we can look at manipulation on one end, what does it mean to be integral and have integrity, which is very important. So. That framework isn't really robust and designed whilst you have the Premier League now you can see the World Cup and what's currently happening. That word is something, in my humble opinion, which is actually a tick box. And while that's a tick box and we have the UK, we actually have the opportunity to establish something across the board that includes stake and policy holders as well.
So to answer your question, I believe a lot of where society now sits today. Are we moving with the times rather than thinking where we were 20 years ago?And what I see and the professor, would, would, would, would attest to this is you need to include different stakeholders and different mindsets and different people and act as sport is so sports free for everyone, especially the sport of football. It's a community based game where the language itself should be colocalized the culture and the influence.
We need to look at prisons and systems and see if there's a football or there's sport. People are involved. But more importantly, the weapon you now have in this digital space, you have cryptocurrency technologies, different areas where criminal influences live within our society. And I believe in the strength that we can potentially attain to move forward. We just need to take a really practical look at what this actually means. So for the McCauley convention, is there enough cultural influence from these countries because that kid living in Portugal, in the favelas, or that kid living in south east London were playing the same game, but it's a completely different demographic and mindset.
So if we look at case studies and research, how much of this data and information are we actually getting to understand this human's behaviour, which can include reporting, which can include risk and within that risk and ecosystem, we can actually build framework that actually shows if you have a young Moses at 18, look at his background, look at his family, look at his siblings, what are the influences around him that shape where this opportunity of crime and corruption.
11:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Would think, um, just as, and I should say, and this is, this is relevant to the debate to declare my own interest. I'm on the board of a um. Data business that is, the systems that it's building are now being used by poly markets and prediction markets. Um, I don't think there's a conflict of interest at that point, but the point is that the, the idea of fixing a broad match one nil is sort of history. Now you're looking at very specific intra match points where people can bet on, you know, whether you get a red card halfway through or whether you kick the ball from the halfway line or whatever.
Um, and as you say, it's interesting that the, the focus should be as much on the big multinational criminal syndicates as it should be on the players themselves and the vulnerability of a 17 year old player being offered huge amounts of money in a junior league of football. And do you think that something like the McAllen convention or indeed what the UK is doing is enough to support the players in a cultural sense?Do you feel in in English, British football there is a an understanding now compared to what there was when you were first approached, you know, 20 years ago.
Um, and as you say, it's interesting that the, the focus should be as much on the big multinational criminal syndicates as it should be on the players themselves and the vulnerability of a 17 year old player being offered huge amounts of money in a junior league of football. And do you think that something like the McAllen convention or indeed what the UK is doing is enough to support the players in a cultural sense?Do you feel in in English, British football there is a an understanding now compared to what there was when you were first approached, you know, 20 years ago.
11:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I honestly believe now if I'm going to be really open with everybody in this room, it's got worse. And if we look at the line of poly markets, a lot of these commercial companies are for profit. When you look at companies such as epic, Global Risk and Mental Health and Awareness and the NHS, you have to strip everything back. How how does one view crime?And in this crime, what are the laws behind this crime?So I knew in 2013, if we were caught and we were penalised, what's the likelihood of the criminal element and prosecution getting a conviction because we were tried for bribery?So before we get to the line of okay, poly markets and data, you have to understand the negative effects and the psychology of what actually happens in sport.
This player has broken his leg. This player was once a top tier star. Now he's in prison, for example, this athlete now has, uh, a. The opportunity to go play for Crystal Palace women's team. And if the sport's underfunded, you also have singular sports. It's not just football. You look at tennis. So if you look at the eyes of the criminals, you now have one of the biggest open markets across Asia, pinpointing poly markets where you can literally bet on anything.
And the fact that that exists. You now have younger children gambling and betting through ads and technology and more importantly, being faced with algorithms where they can't pay for their college and education. So once we go into the amateur sports and we realise 99% of these athletes drop out into this ecosystem, not everybody comes from a family or a background where you can enhance that. And for the convention, whilst they may see oversight at the top, we also need to build the bottom and meet in the middle.
And I believe within that framework you have more people coming forward and reporting. You have much more awareness and you have much more commercial companies who are actually regulated, making sure they're doing the right thing, which is compliance and risk, and making sure that mitigation in all circumstances is over stood and understood by everybody. That's part of us in the UK saying, if there's a breach on integrity or there's a betting and gambling, it doesn't just affect football, it affects the entire country, it affects the reputation.
It goes far and beyond, um, that access.
This player has broken his leg. This player was once a top tier star. Now he's in prison, for example, this athlete now has, uh, a. The opportunity to go play for Crystal Palace women's team. And if the sport's underfunded, you also have singular sports. It's not just football. You look at tennis. So if you look at the eyes of the criminals, you now have one of the biggest open markets across Asia, pinpointing poly markets where you can literally bet on anything.
And the fact that that exists. You now have younger children gambling and betting through ads and technology and more importantly, being faced with algorithms where they can't pay for their college and education. So once we go into the amateur sports and we realise 99% of these athletes drop out into this ecosystem, not everybody comes from a family or a background where you can enhance that. And for the convention, whilst they may see oversight at the top, we also need to build the bottom and meet in the middle.
And I believe within that framework you have more people coming forward and reporting. You have much more awareness and you have much more commercial companies who are actually regulated, making sure they're doing the right thing, which is compliance and risk, and making sure that mitigation in all circumstances is over stood and understood by everybody. That's part of us in the UK saying, if there's a breach on integrity or there's a betting and gambling, it doesn't just affect football, it affects the entire country, it affects the reputation.
It goes far and beyond, um, that access.
11:13
11:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you for your, uh, important. Um. Dear Mr. Swoboda has indicated that in his view, the situation is getting worse. Uh, do you share that view?Uh, do you also take the view that you we are seeing the problem in some ways change in its its nature shifting into new regions, sports more highly sophisticated methods. What's your take on this issue?
11:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you for the question, my Lord, and for the invitation today. Uh, I totally agree with Mr. Schwab. I think we have seen and we have, um, experienced and also been able to measure through studies, the fact that in the last 20, 20 something years, there has been a very certain increase in the phenomenon of match fixing or competition manipulation, as the convention calls it itself. Um, I would say, um, it's getting worse indeed in the sense that the phenomenon is amplifying. We are now facing obviously globalised trade where facing a great increase or even an extraordinary increase, I would say, in online exchanges.
And Mr. Svabo talked about this, uh, it's possible to access this kind of services now from anywhere, at any age to be able to pay or not to pay or to defer payment for them. So it has been, um, it has become an increasing, increasing problem. Uh, is it changing in nature?I think yes. Because, um, as Mr. Schreiber also said, and I can confirm we have many studies which can actually show this. Um, now nowadays in the last, I would say 15, maybe 16 years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the infiltration of organised crime into match fixing.
So we know that nowadays we're not talking about anymore about the small fixes which have always existed in sports. This team talks with the other team. This player talks with the other player and they agree to fix, uh, either a match, the result or some micro events during the match. Obviously that is also serious and it is a crime, but it's overall less serious and less dangerous. If we compare this situation with the situation that we know of today, that of the infiltration of organised crime syndicates.
So we know this is a fact. We know that this is why it's one of the main reasons why countries need also a top down approach. And that is where the macro convention comes into place, because no single sports organisation, no single sports betting organisation can fight with international organised crime syndicates. That is really a job, obviously, for law enforcement, and it's a job for international cooperation in this field. And that is precisely what the convention does. And if I may just maybe say.
Um, or give you my quite personal, very personal commentary on the convention. Um, I think it's a very Swiss convention all in all, because it does not aim for the stratosphere like other conventions of its type. It does not create any new supranational body, any new supranational proceedings. It does not aim for the stars. It actually stays very, very close to the ground. And this convention was made in cooperation between different stakeholders sports, sports betting and law enforcement authorities.
It was made to benefit the everyday work of law enforcement and the everyday work of the people on the field, on the actual field. So what I would actually say, it's a very Swiss convention. Because of that, it does not have an ambition to again reach the stratosphere, but it stays very, very close to the ground. And I think that's the best way to tackle this kind of phenomenon. Could you finally answer?Sorry.
And Mr. Svabo talked about this, uh, it's possible to access this kind of services now from anywhere, at any age to be able to pay or not to pay or to defer payment for them. So it has been, um, it has become an increasing, increasing problem. Uh, is it changing in nature?I think yes. Because, um, as Mr. Schreiber also said, and I can confirm we have many studies which can actually show this. Um, now nowadays in the last, I would say 15, maybe 16 years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the infiltration of organised crime into match fixing.
So we know that nowadays we're not talking about anymore about the small fixes which have always existed in sports. This team talks with the other team. This player talks with the other player and they agree to fix, uh, either a match, the result or some micro events during the match. Obviously that is also serious and it is a crime, but it's overall less serious and less dangerous. If we compare this situation with the situation that we know of today, that of the infiltration of organised crime syndicates.
So we know this is a fact. We know that this is why it's one of the main reasons why countries need also a top down approach. And that is where the macro convention comes into place, because no single sports organisation, no single sports betting organisation can fight with international organised crime syndicates. That is really a job, obviously, for law enforcement, and it's a job for international cooperation in this field. And that is precisely what the convention does. And if I may just maybe say.
Um, or give you my quite personal, very personal commentary on the convention. Um, I think it's a very Swiss convention all in all, because it does not aim for the stratosphere like other conventions of its type. It does not create any new supranational body, any new supranational proceedings. It does not aim for the stars. It actually stays very, very close to the ground. And this convention was made in cooperation between different stakeholders sports, sports betting and law enforcement authorities.
It was made to benefit the everyday work of law enforcement and the everyday work of the people on the field, on the actual field. So what I would actually say, it's a very Swiss convention. Because of that, it does not have an ambition to again reach the stratosphere, but it stays very, very close to the ground. And I think that's the best way to tackle this kind of phenomenon. Could you finally answer?Sorry.
11:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And to answer one of your other questions, my Lord, um, you are asking if we have seen any increase in certain markets or in certain sports. Well, I can answer that question globally. Um, 15 years ago I would have said it's mostly football, cricket and tennis, which are the sports mostly affected by this. And I would have said also, uh, the most deregulated markets being the Asian markets would be, uh, a point of concern, but that would have been 15 years ago. Nowadays, I would answer you, my Lord, that all the sports are concerned.
We have seen, uh, match fixing scandals in sports, which are much less susceptible of this kind of phenomenon, like darts or chess or skiing lately. And it's also happening now everywhere, not only in Asia, not only in Europe, but we know it's happening everywhere.
We have seen, uh, match fixing scandals in sports, which are much less susceptible of this kind of phenomenon, like darts or chess or skiing lately. And it's also happening now everywhere, not only in Asia, not only in Europe, but we know it's happening everywhere.
11:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I've been. I've been told that there has been a 92% jump in recorded cases in Africa of suspicious football matches that in North and Central America. In football, the expansion a 42% surge has been fuelled by. Increase a considerable increase in the regulation and unregulated online sports gambling industry. Uh, Mr. Swoboda, is that your experience too?And would you. Do you recognise those figures?
11:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, I'm aware of those figures. Um, I go back before I go forward. Forward. So in the time of our match fixing, um technology was nowhere near where it is today. And we were able or they were able to use spread bets and algorithms and, uh, mathematics on the performance of the pitch where technology can't actually tell you how a player is breathing, what's being said on the pitch, the way they're moving, and all of these indicators will signal when you have territories such as Africa, those vulnerabilities can now penetrate markets by the click of buttons.
So whilst there's been a massive increase and everybody has smartphones and mobile phones, the new match fixers are in plain sight and they live in society and law enforcement have not been able to grasp the cusps of what that advancement looks like, because in my humble independence, we have no conflicts of interest with the work I do. So we're not tied to any entities or any illegal betting or regulated company. So when you're hearing this evidence and case study, we need to understand that this is a highly organised syndicate that are built on the ground.
And if you haven't had that experience and you haven't been on the ground, it's very hard to comprehend where those numbers are coming from, bearing in mind you have now international borders, immigration and migration being mixed and mingled into these communities. So another way of looking at your question is, how do you now tackle a million people now using illegal betting online?Those numbers are very much strategical, and they're very much there in black and white. But at the same time, how do we go behind the net and understand to to Madeleine's point with the convention being able to add law enforcement and intelligence is something that I believe would really strengthen what this treaty would become and have a singular unit that are independent, that specifically focus on the area you've just spoken about.
So whilst there's been a massive increase and everybody has smartphones and mobile phones, the new match fixers are in plain sight and they live in society and law enforcement have not been able to grasp the cusps of what that advancement looks like, because in my humble independence, we have no conflicts of interest with the work I do. So we're not tied to any entities or any illegal betting or regulated company. So when you're hearing this evidence and case study, we need to understand that this is a highly organised syndicate that are built on the ground.
And if you haven't had that experience and you haven't been on the ground, it's very hard to comprehend where those numbers are coming from, bearing in mind you have now international borders, immigration and migration being mixed and mingled into these communities. So another way of looking at your question is, how do you now tackle a million people now using illegal betting online?Those numbers are very much strategical, and they're very much there in black and white. But at the same time, how do we go behind the net and understand to to Madeleine's point with the convention being able to add law enforcement and intelligence is something that I believe would really strengthen what this treaty would become and have a singular unit that are independent, that specifically focus on the area you've just spoken about.
11:21
11:21
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Indeed, I think both of you have in fact, begun to answer the question. I was going to ask, which was how significant is cross-border activity and organised crime, international organised crime fuelling the manipulation of sports competitions, and is international cooperation. That's to say, between, uh, countries and governments. Uh, required to tackle this. That's the first part of the question. And the second part relates more specifically to Britain leaving the European Union, which meant that we were cut out of some of the law enforcement cooperation activities of the European Union.
Sis two and other instruments. I'm not too sure where Switzerland stands in that probably still probably included because it's part of the single market. You. Both of you say, whether you think that the UK being cut out of some of these law enforcement cooperation activities is hampering the effort to prevent the cross-border crime, which both of you have referred to already in your answers, and which I've asked again in my question.
Sis two and other instruments. I'm not too sure where Switzerland stands in that probably still probably included because it's part of the single market. You. Both of you say, whether you think that the UK being cut out of some of these law enforcement cooperation activities is hampering the effort to prevent the cross-border crime, which both of you have referred to already in your answers, and which I've asked again in my question.
11:22
11:22
11:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much for the question, my lord. And it actually is right on point. Obviously, I will start with the first part of your question, which I feel more, uh, closer, closer to. Um, so you were asking about the increase of online trading in, in, in match fixing and the implication of organised crime. Now, as I, as we both said, Mr. Swinburne myself already in the beginning, we know for a fact nowadays that organised crime syndicates are behind a large number of match fixing schemes.
And this is the obviously the most dangerous situation there is out there in. In the field of match fixing, we know for certain that there is an increase. There has been a publication a few years ago by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and I was happy to participate to that publication, where we have measured, uh, as much as this can be measured, of course, the implication of organised crime syndicates into match fixing. And we have found tremendous, tremendous infiltration. Um, it's, it's also quite logical somehow because match fixing offers a golden opportunity for, um, organised crime syndicates.
Not only they can easily access this market, as Mr. Svabo also explained, but they also can obviously profit from high gains, high high profits and due high profits quite immediately. And more importantly, even for for some crime syndicates, they can also in the same time launder, uh, the illegal proceeds of other crimes, even more serious than, than match fixing. And I'm talking about lots of trafficking cases. We have seen crime syndicates involved in the same time in drug trafficking, human trafficking, especially of young girls, and also money laundering not only as a way to gain, uh, undue advantages.
And undue, undue profits, but also to launder the proceeds of those other other horrific crimes. So undoubtedly, for myself, this is a an issue which can only be effectively tackled through international cooperation. Criminals don't stay in one country as we know they travel. They have benefited and profited from this new open world that we're living in for, for a few decades now. And so the answer of law enforcement, the response has also, in my view, to be international. And now for the second part of your question, my Lord, uh, which I feel less, um, uh, less close to, uh, I can answer for Switzerland.
Yes, indeed. As you know very well, Switzerland is not part of the EU, has never been part of the EU. The people have voted in the early 90s to stay out of the EU. However, we do participate in every aspect of the EU internal market, but not only from the economical perspective but also from social, cultural perspectives and also law enforcement. So we don't have the same position as as the UK has now after after leaving leaving the EU. And I would only um, humbly.
Just because it's not my field of competence, but I would only suggest an answer to the second part of your question, saying that probably in my view, um, the. UK would largely benefit from the ratification of the convention in order to implement or to be able to access some of the measures, some of the instruments which it has lost, uh, through exiting the European Union, for example, in very operational, um, situations where, uh, international cooperation is in an exchange of information is needed with law enforcement in other countries, in other EU countries where a person needs to be apprehended and arrested in another country, etc..
So for these kind of instruments, the convention also has very, very useful provisions which the UK could benefit from. And obviously the EU could also benefit from the UK's presence in these instruments.
And this is the obviously the most dangerous situation there is out there in. In the field of match fixing, we know for certain that there is an increase. There has been a publication a few years ago by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and I was happy to participate to that publication, where we have measured, uh, as much as this can be measured, of course, the implication of organised crime syndicates into match fixing. And we have found tremendous, tremendous infiltration. Um, it's, it's also quite logical somehow because match fixing offers a golden opportunity for, um, organised crime syndicates.
Not only they can easily access this market, as Mr. Svabo also explained, but they also can obviously profit from high gains, high high profits and due high profits quite immediately. And more importantly, even for for some crime syndicates, they can also in the same time launder, uh, the illegal proceeds of other crimes, even more serious than, than match fixing. And I'm talking about lots of trafficking cases. We have seen crime syndicates involved in the same time in drug trafficking, human trafficking, especially of young girls, and also money laundering not only as a way to gain, uh, undue advantages.
And undue, undue profits, but also to launder the proceeds of those other other horrific crimes. So undoubtedly, for myself, this is a an issue which can only be effectively tackled through international cooperation. Criminals don't stay in one country as we know they travel. They have benefited and profited from this new open world that we're living in for, for a few decades now. And so the answer of law enforcement, the response has also, in my view, to be international. And now for the second part of your question, my Lord, uh, which I feel less, um, uh, less close to, uh, I can answer for Switzerland.
Yes, indeed. As you know very well, Switzerland is not part of the EU, has never been part of the EU. The people have voted in the early 90s to stay out of the EU. However, we do participate in every aspect of the EU internal market, but not only from the economical perspective but also from social, cultural perspectives and also law enforcement. So we don't have the same position as as the UK has now after after leaving leaving the EU. And I would only um, humbly.
Just because it's not my field of competence, but I would only suggest an answer to the second part of your question, saying that probably in my view, um, the. UK would largely benefit from the ratification of the convention in order to implement or to be able to access some of the measures, some of the instruments which it has lost, uh, through exiting the European Union, for example, in very operational, um, situations where, uh, international cooperation is in an exchange of information is needed with law enforcement in other countries, in other EU countries where a person needs to be apprehended and arrested in another country, etc..
So for these kind of instruments, the convention also has very, very useful provisions which the UK could benefit from. And obviously the EU could also benefit from the UK's presence in these instruments.
11:26
11:27
11:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Could I, could I, could I add. Um, I think for me, my interests whilst I'm from the UK and live in the UK, I think it's very important to actually understand that in my case, one of the reasons I changed my life and made a decision, uh, to move forward and, uh, bring awareness to this subject was, uh, ex metropolitan officer who worked for the integrity unit at the FA, literally held my hand the day I came out of prison. And he helped me understand and break down that stereotype of, okay, well, I know you've done this and I know you're a part of this, but how can you help and assist us with how we move forward?So what you'll find in officers who have left the public sector that now work in sport, specifically for the UK, they understand this world better than anyone because they are in the front line.
They have 20, 30 plus years of experience dealing with organised crime and international borders. And these officers or these, um, former superintendents have helped me understand how that landscape to maddalena's point, looks like for international borders and being able to include a group of private privatised officers that have specialist areas of organised crime and money laundering would most definitely help and assist the convention, because I haven't seen that happen as of yet for the UK. Once you understand the landscape and the geography of how criminality and prisons and criminality articulates itself into different areas of sport, it will help you better understand the type of robust structures that need to be put in place from the ground to the next step.
So whilst we're looking at it from the highest level, at the same time, it's finding that medium to understand, okay, if we're based in the UK and we have migration and immigration, how do we now close that gap in that net and have specialised officers that can now assist the convention within this framework?
They have 20, 30 plus years of experience dealing with organised crime and international borders. And these officers or these, um, former superintendents have helped me understand how that landscape to maddalena's point, looks like for international borders and being able to include a group of private privatised officers that have specialist areas of organised crime and money laundering would most definitely help and assist the convention, because I haven't seen that happen as of yet for the UK. Once you understand the landscape and the geography of how criminality and prisons and criminality articulates itself into different areas of sport, it will help you better understand the type of robust structures that need to be put in place from the ground to the next step.
So whilst we're looking at it from the highest level, at the same time, it's finding that medium to understand, okay, if we're based in the UK and we have migration and immigration, how do we now close that gap in that net and have specialised officers that can now assist the convention within this framework?
11:29
11:29
11:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There were international. Um, I was approached by in my career, three different syndicates. Um, the main syndicates still have quite a big globalized foothold on this world of manipulation. They actually haven't changed in their practice practices. So from where we are in technology, there's still the same systems that are still put in place and the same approaches that are just more digitalized. However, understanding that means you need different types of collaborators and individuals. Understanding that network far and way beyond myself as well.
So even though I'm very much in the epicentre of understanding this, I also understand and know the sweet sciences, if you want to call it that. On how this network operates and moves and manipulates.
So even though I'm very much in the epicentre of understanding this, I also understand and know the sweet sciences, if you want to call it that. On how this network operates and moves and manipulates.
11:30
11:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. And actually, I'd like to build on what, uh, Mr. Smith, of what you've just said, because we've been hearing about the changes in cultures, the changes in technology. But what you've just said is that the collaborators are still there. They're finding different ways of getting away forward in, uh, in illegal terms. So can I ask both of you, I don't know who would like to go first, but, um, I'd like to ask, um, do you think that the main problem this is about collaboration effectively principally lie with the sports organisations themselves, with the athletes and officials individually, all the sports betting industry thinking from what?Mr..
Um Weaver has. Just said about how collaboration actually means it opens up the market for the illegal operations. Over to you. I don't know whether this time, since Mr. Zweibel went last, um, whether um, professor Diaconu. Would you'd like to kick off?
Um Weaver has. Just said about how collaboration actually means it opens up the market for the illegal operations. Over to you. I don't know whether this time, since Mr. Zweibel went last, um, whether um, professor Diaconu. Would you'd like to kick off?
11:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I'll start by saying, um, everybody has different interests in sport football at different from the IOC or FIFA, different from the IOC, the Premier League at different from League Two in the National League. And what you find the real challenge is how do you understand where rules and regulations are not as open and transparent as they are?So by the time you get to an athlete that's coming from Africa or Asia, they're not even aware of the rules because it's not their interest. So when we're looking at training and education at that level, you only have a few hours or minutes to interact with staff, with players, with understanding what these rules are, with knowing what you can and can't do.
And in that evolving landscape of sport, being pumped into a commercialized model, you now have to deal with different territories and countries that have the same issues, but in various different ways. So for us as a whole. Having that collaboration, and one thing I'm, I'm really positive with the Mikolay convention, when I first had my introduction with them, I sat in front of all of these judges and helped them understand from a legal point, what does this look like?Because if there's a breach or someone's penalized, these people must be brought to justice.
And the same way I went to prison and I had my experience, we can actually be much more preventative rather than reactive. And within that, we have the Rehabilitation Act, and it's making sure across all levels that these stereotypes are understood and broken down into new systems and new words. So what seems scary and what seems very much I don't want to come forward and say anything. People understand and know what's going on. And as as Medellin again will show, whilst you're based in Switzerland and you're very much hyper focused on one area of this element, there's also a massive international network that's focused on the next ten to 15 to 20 years.
And if we don't catch up to that curve, we're going to fall far. Our behind in in regards to where we can actually establish those levels of collaboration, because I believe and I'm a strong advocate for this, needs to be built into systems and education, which is very important. And it's taken me almost ten years to establish Game Changer 360 just so we get it right. That should be a tool in order for sport, governments and the ecosystem to identify where is this problem, because it's a problem of culture, in my opinion.
And if you don't have cultural emotional intelligence, how are you meant to understand where people's minds and psychology actually arrive?So groups like the NHS can help with gambling and betting harm. I know the PFA and the FA have Sporting Chance Clinic and other clinics, but how do we present and promote much more people coming forward using this international treaty to almost set precedent?Because, in my humble opinion, again, you know, the UK is, is is the home of football and it's definitely the home of sport.
So us being able to identify and fly that flag at the highest version and level would help everybody else understand how far ahead we can become.
And in that evolving landscape of sport, being pumped into a commercialized model, you now have to deal with different territories and countries that have the same issues, but in various different ways. So for us as a whole. Having that collaboration, and one thing I'm, I'm really positive with the Mikolay convention, when I first had my introduction with them, I sat in front of all of these judges and helped them understand from a legal point, what does this look like?Because if there's a breach or someone's penalized, these people must be brought to justice.
And the same way I went to prison and I had my experience, we can actually be much more preventative rather than reactive. And within that, we have the Rehabilitation Act, and it's making sure across all levels that these stereotypes are understood and broken down into new systems and new words. So what seems scary and what seems very much I don't want to come forward and say anything. People understand and know what's going on. And as as Medellin again will show, whilst you're based in Switzerland and you're very much hyper focused on one area of this element, there's also a massive international network that's focused on the next ten to 15 to 20 years.
And if we don't catch up to that curve, we're going to fall far. Our behind in in regards to where we can actually establish those levels of collaboration, because I believe and I'm a strong advocate for this, needs to be built into systems and education, which is very important. And it's taken me almost ten years to establish Game Changer 360 just so we get it right. That should be a tool in order for sport, governments and the ecosystem to identify where is this problem, because it's a problem of culture, in my opinion.
And if you don't have cultural emotional intelligence, how are you meant to understand where people's minds and psychology actually arrive?So groups like the NHS can help with gambling and betting harm. I know the PFA and the FA have Sporting Chance Clinic and other clinics, but how do we present and promote much more people coming forward using this international treaty to almost set precedent?Because, in my humble opinion, again, you know, the UK is, is is the home of football and it's definitely the home of sport.
So us being able to identify and fly that flag at the highest version and level would help everybody else understand how far ahead we can become.
11:34
11:34
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Go to Professor Diaconu?Just following on from that, um, I wonder if you could give a view then about um the responsibility of sporting organisations and officials and what depths you have seen in them trying to ensure that um as Mr. Schweiber said, people come from other countries with different cultures, perhaps with not much education. And are they actually up to speed now in those organisations to try to assist the new players who, after all, come here not really knowing what the future is for them?
11:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you very much for the question, my lady. Um, I do think just like Mr. Schweiber, that the problem lies everywhere. So everyone has a shared part of responsibility. Both, um, sports organisations with their athletes and officials, but also the sports betting industry and law enforcement in general. And I'm quite confident answering this question because for the past two decades, I have been working with international sports organisations, for example, namely with the International Olympic Committee. I'm also a member of the UEFA's disciplinary committee, and we do tackle this very, very seriously.
Um, I have worked with law enforcement such as Interpol, Europol, and I have also as an active barrister. I've also worked for athletes defending them also against, um, match fixing accusations. And uh, I dare to say, um exploiting the, the grey zones where they exist. So with this um. Let's say view, I would, I would very confidently say that the problem or the responsibility lies with every one of the stakeholders. And that is why this McAllen convention is so, um, so useful or has the potential to be so useful because it's the first time that this convention regroups.
All the stakeholders around one table. We're talking obviously about the sports world, but also the sports betting world, which is a different universe. And also about, um, about the law enforcement, which we have spoken about previously. And you are absolutely right there. Um, there's not just the aspect of prosecution which we have been talking a bit more in the last minutes, but there's the macro convention tackles three very, very important aspects. And it's a 360 degree view on the phenomenon.
First of all, it tackles the question of prevention and education. The one that we have touched upon now, and the Council of Europe has and has been, has been created creating sorry instruments in the past years to help all the countries who sign and ratify the convention to have access to all of these resources and tools for prevention, for education hotlines, uh, direct access on the field, in the changing rooms, with the players, with their families, wherever the culture and wherever they come from. And that's the first aspect.
The second aspect is obviously more legal and that's, that's prosecution and sanctioning. So for all of these reasons together, I do think that the convention is really the instrument, which is, um, which is probably the, the exact instrument that we need to have for the first time a chance to really tackle, to effectively tackle at an operational level, the phenomenon of international match fixing.
Um, I have worked with law enforcement such as Interpol, Europol, and I have also as an active barrister. I've also worked for athletes defending them also against, um, match fixing accusations. And uh, I dare to say, um exploiting the, the grey zones where they exist. So with this um. Let's say view, I would, I would very confidently say that the problem or the responsibility lies with every one of the stakeholders. And that is why this McAllen convention is so, um, so useful or has the potential to be so useful because it's the first time that this convention regroups.
All the stakeholders around one table. We're talking obviously about the sports world, but also the sports betting world, which is a different universe. And also about, um, about the law enforcement, which we have spoken about previously. And you are absolutely right there. Um, there's not just the aspect of prosecution which we have been talking a bit more in the last minutes, but there's the macro convention tackles three very, very important aspects. And it's a 360 degree view on the phenomenon.
First of all, it tackles the question of prevention and education. The one that we have touched upon now, and the Council of Europe has and has been, has been created creating sorry instruments in the past years to help all the countries who sign and ratify the convention to have access to all of these resources and tools for prevention, for education hotlines, uh, direct access on the field, in the changing rooms, with the players, with their families, wherever the culture and wherever they come from. And that's the first aspect.
The second aspect is obviously more legal and that's, that's prosecution and sanctioning. So for all of these reasons together, I do think that the convention is really the instrument, which is, um, which is probably the, the exact instrument that we need to have for the first time a chance to really tackle, to effectively tackle at an operational level, the phenomenon of international match fixing.
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you for the question. Um, I would say that I am happy. Uh, of course, it's a it's a work in progress. And the convention is a work in progress. But I am personally quite happy with it because we have now around the table, as we said previously, hundreds, hundreds, not dozens, but hundreds of sport betting agencies, regulators, but also operators who have agreed to sign memoranda of understanding, who have agreed to share in live, uh, time their data, suspicions, patterns, uh, any alerts that they may have on their on their systems, if it's here or in Taiwan or in Argentina.
So this is really the, the operational cooperation that I was talking about. Uh, right on the field, very, very close to the ground. So I'm happy to, to say that many of, uh, well, basically all the regulated, uh, sports, um, sports betting operators and, uh, agencies have joined this effort and well, it's going to be a bit more difficult to convince the illegal betting operators to do so, I suppose.
So this is really the, the operational cooperation that I was talking about. Uh, right on the field, very, very close to the ground. So I'm happy to, to say that many of, uh, well, basically all the regulated, uh, sports, um, sports betting operators and, uh, agencies have joined this effort and well, it's going to be a bit more difficult to convince the illegal betting operators to do so, I suppose.
11:39
11:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But the, the chances are that this is really a very, very live instrument and an instrument that for the first time tackles everyone. It has a 360 degree view, trying to get information from whoever, from the field, from the betting operators, from the law enforcement. It can be, uh, a very solid information such as, for example, a criminal record of someone. Or it can be a simple rumor or a simple alert, which was, which popped up in someone's system, let's say in Brazil. Um, UK match.
Let's, let's imagine the situation, which was actually quite true. One, uh, matches in the UK player from Brazil and uh, by a coincidence, hundreds of uh of bets are placed in Brazil on a very small event, which is a yellow card by, by a player, an event which does not prejudice the result of the game. The player does not have the impression of betraying their team, of betraying the coach, etc.. So a very small things, those micro micro fixings. Well, in such a case, without the micro convention, it's virtually impossible for the UK law enforcement and for the UK sports authorities to be able to access the information from Brazil.
They can access some parts of it, but not all of it. And of course, in the end, the criminals will walk free.
Let's, let's imagine the situation, which was actually quite true. One, uh, matches in the UK player from Brazil and uh, by a coincidence, hundreds of uh of bets are placed in Brazil on a very small event, which is a yellow card by, by a player, an event which does not prejudice the result of the game. The player does not have the impression of betraying their team, of betraying the coach, etc.. So a very small things, those micro micro fixings. Well, in such a case, without the micro convention, it's virtually impossible for the UK law enforcement and for the UK sports authorities to be able to access the information from Brazil.
They can access some parts of it, but not all of it. And of course, in the end, the criminals will walk free.
11:40
11:40
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. Chair, I have two questions. The Thank. Lord chair. I have two questions. The first is to both please. And I have a supplementary for Professor Diaconu alone. So I start with the question to both. You have both said that the phenomenon is getting worse despite the existence of the Mechelen Convention. So my first question is what value does UK ratification of this convention and in tackling manipulation of sports competitions and from your personal experience, would these measures have made a difference in cases in the past that you're familiar with?Mr.
Zweibel, my.
Zweibel, my.
11:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I strongly agree with your point. Um, I think what's fundamental here, we have all of these measures, but it's getting worse. So clearly something's not working. So when we strip away, um, excuse my French here, the fluff and we put it in black and white, there's a problem we have that isn't getting any better. And in order to make that problem, uh, either. Go away or assist, we must strip everything back to its origins. So in my experience, um, from the past and now athletes are more sophisticated and intelligent, but athletes are not aware of the rules.
Athletes do not know what the convention is. Right. So I go as far down as the 15 year olds living anywhere in the world, if you ask him or her, what's the convention?They're not aware of this. Why?Because there's no social media. There's no awareness. It's very much structured in an instrument of law and an understanding for a certain demographic and audience and generation. As I keep presenting, match fixing is getting younger, and the solutions are very much old and outdated.
And in respect to the UK and the landscape that we currently sit in now, you have a massive opportunity to ratify this treaty and actually build those structures into what this is going to look like for the next generation of athletes that would make the right decisions. So before we get to ratifying any conventions or a lot of what I've believed is tick boxes and exercises, not much is actually being done. And the whole ecosystem of what this actually looks like. So are we tackling the problem of social media?I haven't heard anything today around how, you know there's a solution for that.
Are we talking about how we can develop different structures into other areas where we can include other stakeholders?Because you look at charities that do an amazing job around gambling and awareness. These people are right at the front line of understanding what that landscape looks like. So I know I may be a bit direct in, in, in my experience, but I'm still at 37 having to learn that next version of, okay, I'm getting older, but am I using different tools and different elements of my understanding of this world?So it's not necessarily law enforcement, police.
Moses, a game changer for the McCauley convention. It's really a societal issue and a problem because sport is played on the streets. You can look at the World Cup right now. Everybody's talking about everybody wants to be included. So are we creating the right awareness and intelligence around?Okay, well, it could be as simple as a campaign. And that campaign can affect much more people in the masses than these legal structures that nobody understands. Because without any athletes, none of this happens.
And my message to the convention and the Maloney who do a great job, there's still much more that needs to be done for the future in the next years to come. In addition to including the relevant people in the conversation and discussion as well.
Athletes do not know what the convention is. Right. So I go as far down as the 15 year olds living anywhere in the world, if you ask him or her, what's the convention?They're not aware of this. Why?Because there's no social media. There's no awareness. It's very much structured in an instrument of law and an understanding for a certain demographic and audience and generation. As I keep presenting, match fixing is getting younger, and the solutions are very much old and outdated.
And in respect to the UK and the landscape that we currently sit in now, you have a massive opportunity to ratify this treaty and actually build those structures into what this is going to look like for the next generation of athletes that would make the right decisions. So before we get to ratifying any conventions or a lot of what I've believed is tick boxes and exercises, not much is actually being done. And the whole ecosystem of what this actually looks like. So are we tackling the problem of social media?I haven't heard anything today around how, you know there's a solution for that.
Are we talking about how we can develop different structures into other areas where we can include other stakeholders?Because you look at charities that do an amazing job around gambling and awareness. These people are right at the front line of understanding what that landscape looks like. So I know I may be a bit direct in, in, in my experience, but I'm still at 37 having to learn that next version of, okay, I'm getting older, but am I using different tools and different elements of my understanding of this world?So it's not necessarily law enforcement, police.
Moses, a game changer for the McCauley convention. It's really a societal issue and a problem because sport is played on the streets. You can look at the World Cup right now. Everybody's talking about everybody wants to be included. So are we creating the right awareness and intelligence around?Okay, well, it could be as simple as a campaign. And that campaign can affect much more people in the masses than these legal structures that nobody understands. Because without any athletes, none of this happens.
And my message to the convention and the Maloney who do a great job, there's still much more that needs to be done for the future in the next years to come. In addition to including the relevant people in the conversation and discussion as well.
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:45
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And I ask my supplementary at the same time, professor, um, which you were eloquent about. Uh, what about what he could do with prevention, education, prosecution, sanctions. A range of countries have already ratified. So there's a lot of theoretical benefits from this cooperation. But it is is it actually making a difference?
11:46
11:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
For clarifying the question and for raising the opportunity for me to say yes, indeed. So, um, I'm going to try to to answer quickly. Um, audio sub questions if I can. Maybe so. So maybe the question, probably the background of the question is the macro convention has been there for a while now. It's starting to be ratified by more and more countries, hopefully more in the future. How come that the phenomenon that we're talking about is still there and it's still increasing?So if I understand the background of your question, I may perhaps answer with one of my favorite historical examples.
I have recently been able to consult, uh, an extraordinary document which you hold in the UK at the library of the University of Oxford, and that is a papyrus from the Upper Egypt, from the year 264, I believe. And it is the first world known, um, at least until now, match fixing agreement.
I have recently been able to consult, uh, an extraordinary document which you hold in the UK at the library of the University of Oxford, and that is a papyrus from the Upper Egypt, from the year 264, I believe. And it is the first world known, um, at least until now, match fixing agreement.
11:47
11:47
11:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Uh, it has been done by a notary public. It has been signed by the athletes, by the athletes parents. It's a perfect. Legally speaking, it's a perfect document. It's a it's an extraordinary piece of of history. But to me, that's, um, that's the necessary historical background. We've been fighting competition manipulation for the last, um, 1700 years. Right?Since this, since this papyrus, or maybe as King Charles would say just the other day.
Now, um, of course. Does it work?Uh, I believe it does. I believe it does work. And I believe that if we compare with, recent history, this instrument, the UN convention, really has the potential to change things to be a game changer on the field. I'm not talking about the stratospheres again. I'm really talking on the field, on the pitch. Um, there's one thing that this convention holds and we have not talked about it yet, but maybe very briefly, there's an article 13 in this convention which speaks about, uh, national platforms, National platforms simply mean that each country participating to the system has to set up a national hub, a national centralizing database, if you'd like, where all the necessary information is stored and is available to everyone else live.
So, for example, a prosecutor from Birmingham or a sports person from Brighton or someone from Scotland, anybody who has an information which is useful for a match fixing case can actually feed that into the database. And the database is then accessible not only on the national but also on an international level to be able to be efficient and the UK. The good news is that the UK already participates. The UK already has a national platform which is quite effective in my view, and it already participates in the system.
Like many other countries which have signed but not ratified yet, the convention, it's a sort of an anticipated, uh. If you would like, of the convention, but I obviously, as a lawyer, I obviously believe that it's much better to have a confirmed base, a confirmed legal base for this convention. So the UK already participates. Things are already being done. More could be done, more instruments could be accessed, especially on the on the field of prevention and and education. So, um, maybe very briefly to, to, uh, to convince, try to convince you that the countries which have experienced the convention fully fledged.
So after ratification, I will take just two examples, uh, Belgium and Spain. Uh, there have been some very successful operations lately in these two countries with the help of Europol and Interpol and some very, very large mafia syndicates were able to be taken down, uh, syndicates who were responsible for hundreds or thousands of match fixing events throughout the world, not just in one country, but really throughout the world. And the Belgian police, the Belgian law enforcement, also the Spain Spanish police were able to access these quite marvelous instruments which are provided by the convention, and be able to really wrap this up and put everyone behind bars.
Now, um, of course. Does it work?Uh, I believe it does. I believe it does work. And I believe that if we compare with, recent history, this instrument, the UN convention, really has the potential to change things to be a game changer on the field. I'm not talking about the stratospheres again. I'm really talking on the field, on the pitch. Um, there's one thing that this convention holds and we have not talked about it yet, but maybe very briefly, there's an article 13 in this convention which speaks about, uh, national platforms, National platforms simply mean that each country participating to the system has to set up a national hub, a national centralizing database, if you'd like, where all the necessary information is stored and is available to everyone else live.
So, for example, a prosecutor from Birmingham or a sports person from Brighton or someone from Scotland, anybody who has an information which is useful for a match fixing case can actually feed that into the database. And the database is then accessible not only on the national but also on an international level to be able to be efficient and the UK. The good news is that the UK already participates. The UK already has a national platform which is quite effective in my view, and it already participates in the system.
Like many other countries which have signed but not ratified yet, the convention, it's a sort of an anticipated, uh. If you would like, of the convention, but I obviously, as a lawyer, I obviously believe that it's much better to have a confirmed base, a confirmed legal base for this convention. So the UK already participates. Things are already being done. More could be done, more instruments could be accessed, especially on the on the field of prevention and and education. So, um, maybe very briefly to, to, uh, to convince, try to convince you that the countries which have experienced the convention fully fledged.
So after ratification, I will take just two examples, uh, Belgium and Spain. Uh, there have been some very successful operations lately in these two countries with the help of Europol and Interpol and some very, very large mafia syndicates were able to be taken down, uh, syndicates who were responsible for hundreds or thousands of match fixing events throughout the world, not just in one country, but really throughout the world. And the Belgian police, the Belgian law enforcement, also the Spain Spanish police were able to access these quite marvelous instruments which are provided by the convention, and be able to really wrap this up and put everyone behind bars.
11:50
11:50
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The convention was concluded in 2014. It didn't come into effect until 2019. Many countries have signed but not ratified. Is this are these hesitations?Um, is there any feeling that that it could be improved?Are the deficiencies which have been pointed out in the convention by certain countries, which lead to their delays?
11:51
11:51
11:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Rightly pointed out, the convention was, opened for signature in 2014. Already it has been entered in. It has entered into force in 2019, when the first five countries um, which signed it, also ratified it. And since then we have indeed seen a decrease in the momentum in the ratification of the convention. Quite a few countries have signed. And we also have non-European countries such as Australia, Morocco. Now, Brazil is also participating, etc.. So we know this is really an important tool also outside of Europe.
That's the purpose of it also. But it is true that there has been a loss of momentum in the ratification. The reasons for that, I think, are quite diverse. I don't believe there's a single explanation for it. I think it also has to do with, um, with the very different regulatory and, uh, and democratic landscape of each country. If I take one example, for example, Germany, Germany was one of the countries which has signed the convention immediately in 2014, but only now currently as we speak, is the Parliament, uh, on the, on, on the, on the way to ratifying the convention.
Germany has been just like the UK participating already to most of the instruments of the convention. But again, it's, it's that sort of anticipated, um, application of the convention and, and more countries are going to ratify soon and to end, um, at the EU level, there has been, uh de polichinelle as we say in. French, a secret which is known by everybody, um, which was the, the Malta lockdown, Malta was the country who has um put a lot of effort into trying to delay as much as possible the signature and the ratification of the convention by EU countries, uh, for specific reasons, obviously, because Malta is one of the providers, one of the largest providers of online betting in, in the world.
So the convention did have some implications for that industry, which is quite important in the country. So that's, that's one of the well known secrets by everybody. Again, that Malta was also one of the um. Things, let's say, or the aspects which delayed the process of ratification of the convention.
That's the purpose of it also. But it is true that there has been a loss of momentum in the ratification. The reasons for that, I think, are quite diverse. I don't believe there's a single explanation for it. I think it also has to do with, um, with the very different regulatory and, uh, and democratic landscape of each country. If I take one example, for example, Germany, Germany was one of the countries which has signed the convention immediately in 2014, but only now currently as we speak, is the Parliament, uh, on the, on, on the, on the way to ratifying the convention.
Germany has been just like the UK participating already to most of the instruments of the convention. But again, it's, it's that sort of anticipated, um, application of the convention and, and more countries are going to ratify soon and to end, um, at the EU level, there has been, uh de polichinelle as we say in. French, a secret which is known by everybody, um, which was the, the Malta lockdown, Malta was the country who has um put a lot of effort into trying to delay as much as possible the signature and the ratification of the convention by EU countries, uh, for specific reasons, obviously, because Malta is one of the providers, one of the largest providers of online betting in, in the world.
So the convention did have some implications for that industry, which is quite important in the country. So that's, that's one of the well known secrets by everybody. Again, that Malta was also one of the um. Things, let's say, or the aspects which delayed the process of ratification of the convention.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Say I would only change one thing, but it's not it's it's more formal than than material. I would make it a United Nations convention. I would not change anything on the contents of it. I would make it maybe a, let's say, an to make things clearer that this is not just a European convention, because it's not it's open for signature and ratification by most countries in the world. However, it does seem. And I do get this feeling sometimes when I travel on other continents that some legislators don't feel attracted to much to this convention because they do believe it's a European convention.
And it's true that sport is very Eurocentric. Uh, most of the sports that we call now international are actually European. Uh, 99% of the sports bodies, international sport bodies are actually European. It's very clear that we're still quite Eurocentric on this. So there's a bit of reluctance, uh, towards the convention because of that. If I could, if I had a magic wand, I would, I would change, uh, the, the umbrella of the convention, but not the contents.
And it's true that sport is very Eurocentric. Uh, most of the sports that we call now international are actually European. Uh, 99% of the sports bodies, international sport bodies are actually European. It's very clear that we're still quite Eurocentric on this. So there's a bit of reluctance, uh, towards the convention because of that. If I could, if I had a magic wand, I would, I would change, uh, the, the umbrella of the convention, but not the contents.
11:55
11:55
11:55
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you very much. Um, so my question is to the professor, and I think you've already talked about the national hub. So you've talked about a lot of the things that are in my question. But I just want to ask you, do you think the UK has the right policy, regulatory and enforcement structures in place to implement this?Um, effectively to implement this agreement effectively?And I also have another question. A different question I'd like to ask Mr.
Schroeder, please.
Schroeder, please.
11:56
11:56
11:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
For the question, my lady. Um, I do believe that the UK already has most of the instruments in place, and obviously all the authorities are in place in order to, to effectively participate. The UK, as I said previously, does already participate in, in the, in the group of Copenhagen we call that it's it's a group of the select group of countries which have national platforms cooperating with others. So the UK is in the top tier, let's say in the in the in the application of the convention already.
And as I mentioned previously, this convention does not aim to create new bureaucracy or to create new structures or to to make things difficult. It actually aims at simplifying the maximum. What exists already and to assist in case there's. There's a need for national improvements.
And as I mentioned previously, this convention does not aim to create new bureaucracy or to create new structures or to to make things difficult. It actually aims at simplifying the maximum. What exists already and to assist in case there's. There's a need for national improvements.
11:57
11:57
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Can I just ask Mr. Swoboda, you've talked a colleague, the professor, about education and training, and you talked about maybe as early as primary school, although you did in your first answer. Also talk about the fact that you you had a sense that what that match fixing was morally wrong. So when you're talking about education, are you really talking about young people having a sense of right and wrong, having a sense of being resilient in order to, in order to stand against things that they perceive as wrong?Because I don't think there's space in the curriculum to spend a lot of time specifically on this convention.
11:57
11:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I think what I meant to correct myself is everyone does physical education. And within that, you know, integrity doesn't mean it's verbal. It can be body language. It can be, you know, picking up cones. It's these soft skills and assets that continue to make you, uh, deter from that repellent of potential manipulation or corruption. It's who you are inside. So I think when I, in my own dealings with professional sport at amateur level, those, those things come down to knowing how important this environment is.
The kitchen staff, the, the kitman, all of these people that make England and these teams and the world love where sport is. So that version of education is very nuanced and it doesn't take a lot of time and effort, but it just needs to be reinforced as well. So when we're going across a lot of these areas as well, it's just making sure the right structures are in place and, um, it ticks the right boxes to be honest.
The kitchen staff, the, the kitman, all of these people that make England and these teams and the world love where sport is. So that version of education is very nuanced and it doesn't take a lot of time and effort, but it just needs to be reinforced as well. So when we're going across a lot of these areas as well, it's just making sure the right structures are in place and, um, it ticks the right boxes to be honest.
11:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think, and I suppose that the, I read in the documentation that academies, sports academies have to teach the McKernan convention. I mean, whether they go so specific, but but you're taught now if you go to the Chelsea Young Players Academy, you. I think you're obliged to be taught about match fixing is illegal, etc. and as you said, you knew it was wrong when you were when you were doing it. I mean, the specifics of the convention don't necessarily need every reinforcement, but I think that is.
AM I right about that?Um. Mr. Conor, that it is a component of the convention that this has to be implemented by sports bodies and sports academies as well. Right. Yeah, yeah. Very helpful. Thank you. And our last question, chairman.
AM I right about that?Um. Mr. Conor, that it is a component of the convention that this has to be implemented by sports bodies and sports academies as well. Right. Yeah, yeah. Very helpful. Thank you. And our last question, chairman.
12:00
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, um, it's a bit of a deeper question because I'm asking you, what else could we do apart from all the things that you've mentioned?And it's probably if I were to amplify it by what's your priority for new actions, either through the convention or by the United Kingdom's own measures?And could I ask a specific question to the professor that's linked to that?What has been the role of the monitoring body of the Council of Europe?Because quite clearly they have a monitoring role.
They have a monitoring body. Have they been doing sufficient. And I must declare my interest as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Have they been sufficient in order to be able to make sure that internationally, this convention is operating properly?
They have a monitoring body. Have they been doing sufficient. And I must declare my interest as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Have they been sufficient in order to be able to make sure that internationally, this convention is operating properly?
12:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I think I can answer that in brief. Um, technology is so sufficient and important. I think one thing you'll find from proprietary data whilst you train new models, you can now click buttons and language changes and builds framework for that level of understanding. So whether you're really good at academic work or whether you're more practical, it builds a robust structure to who you are as an individual. And I think with all of these messages and to my colleague convention with these national platforms, those systems, from my knowledge, are now being implemented in different ways.
And it's just improving the technology and the aspect of that inclusion on a mass scale, um, for the convention and that level as well, which, uh, the convention from my experience are doing the right things in those structures and continuing to improve those models as well. So the answer for me will be, uh, hyper focused on technology and solutions and also understanding great information can come from real good data sets and feeding that good information and data and, uh, mixing it in with the right compliance and regulatory regulatory solutions will definitely enhance what I believe will make a sufficient effective change.
And it's just improving the technology and the aspect of that inclusion on a mass scale, um, for the convention and that level as well, which, uh, the convention from my experience are doing the right things in those structures and continuing to improve those models as well. So the answer for me will be, uh, hyper focused on technology and solutions and also understanding great information can come from real good data sets and feeding that good information and data and, uh, mixing it in with the right compliance and regulatory regulatory solutions will definitely enhance what I believe will make a sufficient effective change.
12:01
12:01
12:02
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lord. If I may say in in if I may answer the question in 30s or less. Um, you asked about the role of the follow up committee of the convention, which of course does exist. And it does work a lot to my taste. They actually do too much. I'm not sure this is the the answer you were expecting, but um, yes. So it's a very active, uh, follow up committee for now. Of course, the follow up is limited to the countries who have signed and or ratified the convention, so we hope there will be they will be doing much more work in the future with more countries coming in and participating in the convention.
But they they are already doing a lot of work. They have, for example, a few years ago tried to even enlarge the definition of match fixing. What is actually match fixing to cover even more offences than were initially sort of in the in the convention. So they are doing a lot of work and I hope they will be doing more in the future too. Thank you, my Lord.
But they they are already doing a lot of work. They have, for example, a few years ago tried to even enlarge the definition of match fixing. What is actually match fixing to cover even more offences than were initially sort of in the in the convention. So they are doing a lot of work and I hope they will be doing more in the future too. Thank you, my Lord.
12:03
12:03
12:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Very much, Maddalena. Thank you for joining us from Switzerland. And Moses as well. I greatly appreciate it. I think I speak on behalf of our whole committee when I say how appreciative we we are of the journey you've taken and the fact that you're now here giving evidence is a great credit to yourself.
12:04
12:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We're going to stop the recording now. Wonderful. Well good afternoon, everyone. And I'm extremely pleased to be able to welcome Mr. Pascal Lamy to this committee. Uh, we Pascal, as you know, the International Agreements Committee monitor all the treaties and agreements that the UK enters into. And we are currently doing a specific inquiry into what we call trade in a turbulent world. And many of the. Perceptions of free trade and the acceptance of multilateralism and so on have clearly been eroded over time.
And specifically in the last two years or so, where direct changes from nations across the world, including our own, who assumed multilateralism was set in stone, are now looking to distort that. And our questions really feature around, um, what is the future of multilateralism and how should the UK react?And then second to that, how does the UK use different types of trade mechanisms?Emma's bilateral agreements, whatever they may be, more less formal agreements in order to ensure that we can trade globally. And of course, the ramifications that has in relation to our ability to scrutinise proper agreements, um and whether or not they're the sorts of things that we should be doing to promote trade and economic growth.
But really, for me, having followed your extraordinary career since I got involved in interested in politics aged 16 quite a few years ago now. Um, I look upon you as the as the father of the modern trading system. And my question really is to ask you to be sort of quite expansive in your opening thoughts in terms of what sort of what you think has gone wrong in the last few years. And I would have thought when you when you retired from the WTO, that you'd created a wonderful system that would last for eternity.
But the friction seems to have started almost the day after you relinquished that position. And the sort of supplementary question, more philosophical question, which is that why do you think nations fundamentally don't really like free trade?And I say that in a in a in a sense that everyone says they like free trade. Um, like they say they like going to the gym. But when it actually comes down to it, when it comes down to the realities of having to have their own economies and so on, they just find it a lot harder.
And particularly when stresses are placed upon them as they are today with wars and other significant issues, that they relinquish their adherence to the principles of free trade and multilateralism. And whether you've seen that as a as as far back as when you started in the European Commission, uh, and whether you see that going forward. But again, we welcome you hugely and look forward to your responses today.
And specifically in the last two years or so, where direct changes from nations across the world, including our own, who assumed multilateralism was set in stone, are now looking to distort that. And our questions really feature around, um, what is the future of multilateralism and how should the UK react?And then second to that, how does the UK use different types of trade mechanisms?Emma's bilateral agreements, whatever they may be, more less formal agreements in order to ensure that we can trade globally. And of course, the ramifications that has in relation to our ability to scrutinise proper agreements, um and whether or not they're the sorts of things that we should be doing to promote trade and economic growth.
But really, for me, having followed your extraordinary career since I got involved in interested in politics aged 16 quite a few years ago now. Um, I look upon you as the as the father of the modern trading system. And my question really is to ask you to be sort of quite expansive in your opening thoughts in terms of what sort of what you think has gone wrong in the last few years. And I would have thought when you when you retired from the WTO, that you'd created a wonderful system that would last for eternity.
But the friction seems to have started almost the day after you relinquished that position. And the sort of supplementary question, more philosophical question, which is that why do you think nations fundamentally don't really like free trade?And I say that in a in a in a sense that everyone says they like free trade. Um, like they say they like going to the gym. But when it actually comes down to it, when it comes down to the realities of having to have their own economies and so on, they just find it a lot harder.
And particularly when stresses are placed upon them as they are today with wars and other significant issues, that they relinquish their adherence to the principles of free trade and multilateralism. And whether you've seen that as a as as far back as when you started in the European Commission, uh, and whether you see that going forward. But again, we welcome you hugely and look forward to your responses today.
12:06
12:07
12:07
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Which you have awarded me with. Uh, and I will take them, uh, if that's okay with you. Uh, not exactly in the order which you suggested. And maybe taking the UK side of things, rather at the end, after we've looked at the global frame and maybe regrouping, uh, one of 1 or 2 of these questions. Now to start with the big picture, I think you're absolutely right. Uh, the World trade scene is, uh, now looks very different, uh, from what it was, uh, ten years or 20 years ago.
When, uh, I exercised, uh, various institutional responsibilities in that field. What has changed?Uh, overall, I think what has changed is the balance. Uh, between geoeconomics and geopolitics. We've been living since the 80s through, I believe, a period of rapid globalization. Uh, some. Uh, I think, uh, the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated. Uh, their own view. Uh, the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated.
Uh, their own view. What opening trade, uh, brings in terms of being the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated. Uh, their own view. What opening trade, uh, brings in terms of benefits and challenges. We've also had episodes like Covid, for instance, would have, uh, revealed, uh. The fragility of a number of these supply chains, which were the way globalization expanded in connecting, uh, production systems, not just by, uh, end products, but by components, uh, the sort of.
Uh, balance from, uh, just in time to just in case, just in time was a priority, just in case. Now in a number of cases has become the priority. Uh, I think, uh, there are also a number of, uh. Social impacts of rapid globalization, uh, at least in the Western world, uh, which have impacted the sort of ideological sense. Not that everybody at the time was 100% convinced that opening trade was the way to go. But it was there was a large consensus, which is now dented.
And notably, unsurprisingly, in my view. In a place where the social system that. In a way, buffers, uh, the impact of Ricardian, uh, division of labor, uh, like the U. US is pretty weak. Of course, uh, we also have other developments which play in different directions. Uh, and I think the main one of these developments remains technology, which has always been, uh, reducing the cost of distance in human history. And we've now reached a stage where the cost of distance is at zero, uh, with digitalization and which plays in a way that formidably favors international exchange of data, of services of value addition.
You probably have a few, uh, millions of Indian doctors who are now ready to enter the global market of tele medical diagnosis. But you also have a much more fragmented regulatory landscape, uh, on things like, uh, data ownership, localization, protection, not to speak about the different views of where AI is going. This has been accompanied by two dynamics, which, uh, were. Already there. But at the beginning, uh, 10 or 15 years ago, uh, the first one is the US, uh, distancing themselves, uh, from.
Uh, the WTO and its disciplines. And we all know the saga, uh, the US progressively putting in doubt and then paralyzing, uh. Main instrument of the WTO, which was the dispute settlement system. It has been replaced by another one which works among those who want to work with that, which means not the US. And of course, the extraordinary, uh, rapid. Uh, development of. The Chinese economy. And, uh, there a huge place. And I, of course, will come back to that in today's world trading system.
When, uh, I exercised, uh, various institutional responsibilities in that field. What has changed?Uh, overall, I think what has changed is the balance. Uh, between geoeconomics and geopolitics. We've been living since the 80s through, I believe, a period of rapid globalization. Uh, some. Uh, I think, uh, the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated. Uh, their own view. Uh, the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated.
Uh, their own view. What opening trade, uh, brings in terms of being the main underlying factor is the growing, uh, us, China, geopolitical, geostrategic rivalry, which has permeated. Uh, their own view. What opening trade, uh, brings in terms of benefits and challenges. We've also had episodes like Covid, for instance, would have, uh, revealed, uh. The fragility of a number of these supply chains, which were the way globalization expanded in connecting, uh, production systems, not just by, uh, end products, but by components, uh, the sort of.
Uh, balance from, uh, just in time to just in case, just in time was a priority, just in case. Now in a number of cases has become the priority. Uh, I think, uh, there are also a number of, uh. Social impacts of rapid globalization, uh, at least in the Western world, uh, which have impacted the sort of ideological sense. Not that everybody at the time was 100% convinced that opening trade was the way to go. But it was there was a large consensus, which is now dented.
And notably, unsurprisingly, in my view. In a place where the social system that. In a way, buffers, uh, the impact of Ricardian, uh, division of labor, uh, like the U. US is pretty weak. Of course, uh, we also have other developments which play in different directions. Uh, and I think the main one of these developments remains technology, which has always been, uh, reducing the cost of distance in human history. And we've now reached a stage where the cost of distance is at zero, uh, with digitalization and which plays in a way that formidably favors international exchange of data, of services of value addition.
You probably have a few, uh, millions of Indian doctors who are now ready to enter the global market of tele medical diagnosis. But you also have a much more fragmented regulatory landscape, uh, on things like, uh, data ownership, localization, protection, not to speak about the different views of where AI is going. This has been accompanied by two dynamics, which, uh, were. Already there. But at the beginning, uh, 10 or 15 years ago, uh, the first one is the US, uh, distancing themselves, uh, from.
Uh, the WTO and its disciplines. And we all know the saga, uh, the US progressively putting in doubt and then paralyzing, uh. Main instrument of the WTO, which was the dispute settlement system. It has been replaced by another one which works among those who want to work with that, which means not the US. And of course, the extraordinary, uh, rapid. Uh, development of. The Chinese economy. And, uh, there a huge place. And I, of course, will come back to that in today's world trading system.
12:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Could I just ask, um, I don't know about my colleagues, but I'm trying to turn the volume up. I don't know if everyone can hear clearly enough, but if you want just if you need a bit closer to the microphone, but I have I have a supplementary question from one of my colleagues, Lord Boateng, if that's all right. If you wanted just to come in.
12:12
12:13
12:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, chairman. Um, Mr. Lamy, thank you so much for your evidence. The last time we met was in South Africa, I think about 20 years or so ago. And in many ways, your periods in office, both in the EU and in the WTO, represented the high water mark of globalization and the belief in globalization. We know from the experience of South Africa, uh, that in. That globalization hasn't risen everyone's boat in South Africa, the exception of China to the WTO meant, in effect, the destruction of what was a very successful clothing, apparel, uh, industry.
Uh, we've seen globalization, impact on communities elsewhere in both the developed and the developing world. And as a result of that, people have suffered. Uh, there has been an upsurge in popularism, which is totally opposed to free trade. So how, in your view, do you answer the question about globalization and the impact of free trade on disadvantaged communities, and how, in any event?Do we begin to rebuild confidence in the role of multilateral organizations in relation to trade?
Uh, we've seen globalization, impact on communities elsewhere in both the developed and the developing world. And as a result of that, people have suffered. Uh, there has been an upsurge in popularism, which is totally opposed to free trade. So how, in your view, do you answer the question about globalization and the impact of free trade on disadvantaged communities, and how, in any event?Do we begin to rebuild confidence in the role of multilateral organizations in relation to trade?
12:14
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Uh, thank you very much for the question. That was exactly the point I was making, uh, which is the attitude vis a vis open trade and globalization has been dented by the social impact of globalization in some quarters, some quarters, mostly the United States of America, which of course play a big role in this in this world.
12:14
12:15
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I agree with that. I totally agree with that. And I among those who believe that the Brexit vote, uh, has been influenced by these developments. And in a way, this is a bit of an exception because the UK has a, let's say, reasonably, uh, comfort. Notable, uh, as compared to other continents, European like welfare system. I agree with that. But let me, uh, sort of conclude here that we should not take that out for Western European, UK perception, which I described and which is that the world has changed is.
The dominant one. First we have to look at numbers. And the reality is that the volumes of international trade are still comfortably growing, including in 2025, which was not the best year, uh, on the geopolitics of trade, as we all know, notably, for us, reasons first and second, that overall, if you attend the General Council of the WTO, where countries are represented by their ambassadors or a conference where they are represented by their ministers, there still is an overwhelming majority of developing countries who want globalization to go forward.
So, uh, I, I put this, this caveat, this nuance into the notion that things are transforming. They are, but not to the point of questioning globally. The benefits of open trade, even if some costs have appeared or some vulnerabilities, nor the general political attitude. Uh, we have a series of problems. And I can give you a sort of short snapshot of how I see these problems. But overall, we should understand that our, let's say, little Western perception, uh, may not be the way others in a vast majority on this planet.
Are the problems. Uh, and I will, uh, as necessary. Explain, uh, what I say, which I will put in a reasonably simple, inevitably provocative way. Looking ahead, we have three problems. Let's say we have four problems. We have one small problem, which is the US we have. Uh, two mid-sized problems, uh, which are, uh, the way WTO is organized, the way it works. And second, this, uh, touchy interface between trade opening and environmental protection.
Uh, that's the two. Middle sized problems and the big size problem, uh, which is the one I'm now very much focusing on is China. Uh. Us, in my view, is not a big size problem. It's a US problem. And if the US surround themselves, the 10% tariff fence, uh, for the years to come, they will have to pay the price for this, and we will all compensate the small part of market share we lose in the US in opening more with others, which is what we are all doing.
So I do not see Trump as, uh, the. Guy that will put the revolution in globalization and turn it the other way around. Whatever he proclaims on the. Size problem. Uh, we have a long lasting problem, which I underlined when I was European Trade Commissioner, which I underlined when I was European. Chief WTO, which is that the organization of the WTO itself, i.e. the balance between the Secretariat and the members is wrong. Uh, it's not working efficiently.
There is not enough trust between the formidable technical capacities of the Secretariat and member states. And as a result of that, agreeing on something which is inevitably of a very technical nature. Takes much too much time. And with procedures which are way too, uh, protracted. The other problem we have is this trade and environment nexus on which the Institut Jacques Delors in Brussels, which is one of the three I coordinate with Paris, Berlin and Brussels, has been working a lot with, including in tabling the first sebum template.
Uh, is. An issue which for the moment does not have a proper solution. While it is progressively permeating, uh, both sides. Uh, and this is a key issue because we need to have a clearer overall strategic stance on where opening trade benefits the environment, notably through proper migration and the other way around, when the increase of transport or the fact that steel is more transported and exchanged than others is an issue. And I'll stop there, uh, for the moment. Finally, China, which in my view is the big problem, uh, for the times to come and for two reasons.
Uh, the first one is, uh, because of their importance in international trade and notably in manufacturers. China produces, uh, 35% of world manufacturers, uh, and exports roughly more than half of that, uh, uh, which. Uh, which is a huge proportion as compared to the past. And, and in a situation where one, uh, including myself, I'm a big believer, as everybody knows, in the benefits of open trade, provided the distribution of these benefits, uh, is properly done, which is not a sort of global or WTO issue.
It's much more of a national issue. Uh, I'm a big believer in the benefits of trade opening because I believe if I do something better than you do and you do something better than I do, we have a rational Ricardian, uh, Schumpeterian base interest to trade. And I've always believed that. And I still believe that. But but. If China gets a comparative advantage everywhere. Along the manufacturing, supply and value chain, then we have a big problem.
The notion that comparative advantage is what we have to foster in order to create efficiencies. If China has comparative advantages stemming from its political regime, its capacity to subside, the size of its market, the formidable investment they have done in education and innovation, uh, stemming from, uh, where they were 30 years ago in producing t shirts and, and shoes to now being at the frontier of artificial intelligence, then we have a problem. And this problem shakes. The WTO system. Uh-uh. WTO is based on the notion that opening trade is good because comparative advantages can play the moment.
Comparative advantages start not playing anymore. The basement, the ideological basement of WTO is shaken. And then we. When I say we, uh, which are the ones, uh, and I'm speaking as a European and in my view, and pardon me for that. Uh, the UK is and remain parts of the European system. Whatever the details of this participation are. And in my view, they are important for political reasons. But globally speaking, UK remains, uh, European.
Country by many, many ways. We are competitive. Vis a vis all countries on this planet, including the US. Uh, but we are not competitive anymore with China. And this is the problem we have to cope with.
The dominant one. First we have to look at numbers. And the reality is that the volumes of international trade are still comfortably growing, including in 2025, which was not the best year, uh, on the geopolitics of trade, as we all know, notably, for us, reasons first and second, that overall, if you attend the General Council of the WTO, where countries are represented by their ambassadors or a conference where they are represented by their ministers, there still is an overwhelming majority of developing countries who want globalization to go forward.
So, uh, I, I put this, this caveat, this nuance into the notion that things are transforming. They are, but not to the point of questioning globally. The benefits of open trade, even if some costs have appeared or some vulnerabilities, nor the general political attitude. Uh, we have a series of problems. And I can give you a sort of short snapshot of how I see these problems. But overall, we should understand that our, let's say, little Western perception, uh, may not be the way others in a vast majority on this planet.
Are the problems. Uh, and I will, uh, as necessary. Explain, uh, what I say, which I will put in a reasonably simple, inevitably provocative way. Looking ahead, we have three problems. Let's say we have four problems. We have one small problem, which is the US we have. Uh, two mid-sized problems, uh, which are, uh, the way WTO is organized, the way it works. And second, this, uh, touchy interface between trade opening and environmental protection.
Uh, that's the two. Middle sized problems and the big size problem, uh, which is the one I'm now very much focusing on is China. Uh. Us, in my view, is not a big size problem. It's a US problem. And if the US surround themselves, the 10% tariff fence, uh, for the years to come, they will have to pay the price for this, and we will all compensate the small part of market share we lose in the US in opening more with others, which is what we are all doing.
So I do not see Trump as, uh, the. Guy that will put the revolution in globalization and turn it the other way around. Whatever he proclaims on the. Size problem. Uh, we have a long lasting problem, which I underlined when I was European Trade Commissioner, which I underlined when I was European. Chief WTO, which is that the organization of the WTO itself, i.e. the balance between the Secretariat and the members is wrong. Uh, it's not working efficiently.
There is not enough trust between the formidable technical capacities of the Secretariat and member states. And as a result of that, agreeing on something which is inevitably of a very technical nature. Takes much too much time. And with procedures which are way too, uh, protracted. The other problem we have is this trade and environment nexus on which the Institut Jacques Delors in Brussels, which is one of the three I coordinate with Paris, Berlin and Brussels, has been working a lot with, including in tabling the first sebum template.
Uh, is. An issue which for the moment does not have a proper solution. While it is progressively permeating, uh, both sides. Uh, and this is a key issue because we need to have a clearer overall strategic stance on where opening trade benefits the environment, notably through proper migration and the other way around, when the increase of transport or the fact that steel is more transported and exchanged than others is an issue. And I'll stop there, uh, for the moment. Finally, China, which in my view is the big problem, uh, for the times to come and for two reasons.
Uh, the first one is, uh, because of their importance in international trade and notably in manufacturers. China produces, uh, 35% of world manufacturers, uh, and exports roughly more than half of that, uh, uh, which. Uh, which is a huge proportion as compared to the past. And, and in a situation where one, uh, including myself, I'm a big believer, as everybody knows, in the benefits of open trade, provided the distribution of these benefits, uh, is properly done, which is not a sort of global or WTO issue.
It's much more of a national issue. Uh, I'm a big believer in the benefits of trade opening because I believe if I do something better than you do and you do something better than I do, we have a rational Ricardian, uh, Schumpeterian base interest to trade. And I've always believed that. And I still believe that. But but. If China gets a comparative advantage everywhere. Along the manufacturing, supply and value chain, then we have a big problem.
The notion that comparative advantage is what we have to foster in order to create efficiencies. If China has comparative advantages stemming from its political regime, its capacity to subside, the size of its market, the formidable investment they have done in education and innovation, uh, stemming from, uh, where they were 30 years ago in producing t shirts and, and shoes to now being at the frontier of artificial intelligence, then we have a problem. And this problem shakes. The WTO system. Uh-uh. WTO is based on the notion that opening trade is good because comparative advantages can play the moment.
Comparative advantages start not playing anymore. The basement, the ideological basement of WTO is shaken. And then we. When I say we, uh, which are the ones, uh, and I'm speaking as a European and in my view, and pardon me for that. Uh, the UK is and remain parts of the European system. Whatever the details of this participation are. And in my view, they are important for political reasons. But globally speaking, UK remains, uh, European.
Country by many, many ways. We are competitive. Vis a vis all countries on this planet, including the US. Uh, but we are not competitive anymore with China. And this is the problem we have to cope with.
12:24
12:25
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Mr.. Let me. Do you agree that since you stepped down ten years ago as director General, the World trading environment has become more complex, more subsidies, China, more protectionism, less consensus. And the these are the sort of problems facing your successor. Um, do you think that um WTO. Is more inclined to not to confront problems, but countries to find a way around them?And um, do you think that, um, this forced pragmatism is good for world trade?And I think in particular of the recent tariff changes by the USA is are you among those who are inclined to think that this is incompatible with the.
WTO system.
WTO system.
12:26
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
No. I, I, I totally agree. Uh, and we've already mentioned that, that the world is different. Uh, be, uh, WTO. Ah, is about opening. Trade reducing obstacle to trade in a way that is rules based and. That provides a economic agents and ought to be the one that want to expand their operations by penetrating other than their national markets with a stable, predictable litigation system. This is still valid. What we.
Have to consider is whether the disciplines that are enshrined in the WTO rulebook. And notably, uh. A fundamental principle, which is non-discrimination. Uh, are still fit for purpose in a world where China has become what China has become. And I think this is the real question for us all. Uh, we can use when we believe China doesn't play by the rules, we can use the disciplines of WTO in putting anti-dumping duties or countervailing duties. Uh, we can use a series of instruments which are either sector or China targeted.
We cannot do what, in my view, we should start thinking about to do. And and I'm not and I'm not. I'm not saying we should do that tomorrow. But what we probably need to think about is something which is much more powerful, which is a China specific safeguard clause now. I know, that in WTO terms, uh, it's a sort of atomic bomb. Uh, it a priori is not compatible with WTO rules because safeguards which are allowed by the WTO disciplines only work when they are, honest.
You cannot target one country if you want to limit the flood of imports in your country, you cannot target one country if you target in. Imports, you target imports from everywhere. And this is where there is an issue of WTO compatibility. But again, I think the notion of WTO compatibility deserves. A bit of thinking at a time where the fundamentals of why we have these disciplines based on comparative advantage are there. Now, there are also different, uh, other ways to keep, uh, trade open, uh, whether bilateral or regional agreements.
Uh, there are softer instruments than properly negotiated treaty enshrined, enshrined, uh, free trade agreements. Uh, but I think we have to look in these two directions, diversifying the way our economies can benefit from open trade when our national operators, uh, exploit a comparative advantage abroad and relooking at, at the rule book, uh, under conditions which would be fit for purpose with, uh, what China has become. We all know. That a large part of the Chinese, uh, extra. Presence on export markets has to do with the macroeconomic imbalance in China.
That what they invest, what they produce is much bigger than their domestic consumption. Chinese leadership has been saying for 15 years, yes, we want to pump more domestic consumption. We believe in dual circulation and so on. This has not worked. And if you look at latest, uh, sort of projections of Chinese macroeconomic strategy for the ten years to come, it still is about investing more, producing more, moving more and more to the frontier of technology. This is a political strategy that needs to be questioned.
I don't think the Chinese leadership is ready to do that by itself. We others, uh, have to try and create the necessary pressure, uh, on this front.
Have to consider is whether the disciplines that are enshrined in the WTO rulebook. And notably, uh. A fundamental principle, which is non-discrimination. Uh, are still fit for purpose in a world where China has become what China has become. And I think this is the real question for us all. Uh, we can use when we believe China doesn't play by the rules, we can use the disciplines of WTO in putting anti-dumping duties or countervailing duties. Uh, we can use a series of instruments which are either sector or China targeted.
We cannot do what, in my view, we should start thinking about to do. And and I'm not and I'm not. I'm not saying we should do that tomorrow. But what we probably need to think about is something which is much more powerful, which is a China specific safeguard clause now. I know, that in WTO terms, uh, it's a sort of atomic bomb. Uh, it a priori is not compatible with WTO rules because safeguards which are allowed by the WTO disciplines only work when they are, honest.
You cannot target one country if you want to limit the flood of imports in your country, you cannot target one country if you target in. Imports, you target imports from everywhere. And this is where there is an issue of WTO compatibility. But again, I think the notion of WTO compatibility deserves. A bit of thinking at a time where the fundamentals of why we have these disciplines based on comparative advantage are there. Now, there are also different, uh, other ways to keep, uh, trade open, uh, whether bilateral or regional agreements.
Uh, there are softer instruments than properly negotiated treaty enshrined, enshrined, uh, free trade agreements. Uh, but I think we have to look in these two directions, diversifying the way our economies can benefit from open trade when our national operators, uh, exploit a comparative advantage abroad and relooking at, at the rule book, uh, under conditions which would be fit for purpose with, uh, what China has become. We all know. That a large part of the Chinese, uh, extra. Presence on export markets has to do with the macroeconomic imbalance in China.
That what they invest, what they produce is much bigger than their domestic consumption. Chinese leadership has been saying for 15 years, yes, we want to pump more domestic consumption. We believe in dual circulation and so on. This has not worked. And if you look at latest, uh, sort of projections of Chinese macroeconomic strategy for the ten years to come, it still is about investing more, producing more, moving more and more to the frontier of technology. This is a political strategy that needs to be questioned.
I don't think the Chinese leadership is ready to do that by itself. We others, uh, have to try and create the necessary pressure, uh, on this front.
12:30
12:30
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Well, Pascal, what a pleasure it is to be talking to you again. Um, many, many years after we started discussing these problems in quite different contexts. Um, and to have your wisdom available to us in this study we're undertaking, I wonder whether you could just give us, and perhaps we could move a little bit away from China, which you've spoken extremely interestingly and at some length. On to the other big problem, which I suppose you also identified, which is the United States trade policy.
Uh, how fundamental do you think the challenges faced by the World Trade Organization from the Trump administration are?Are they to use a perhaps rather overworked phrase, existential, or are they something that we could hope, could, uh, when President Trump is no longer in the white House, find a better ways of managing them?We're finding just now and how resilient is the system, the overall system of rules based trade to the challenges that, uh, president. UMP who appears not to have studied the most favoured nation provisions when he was at business school.
Um, how much?Is it possible to, to preserve the structures that were established in the GATT and then carried forward into the WTO?
Uh, how fundamental do you think the challenges faced by the World Trade Organization from the Trump administration are?Are they to use a perhaps rather overworked phrase, existential, or are they something that we could hope, could, uh, when President Trump is no longer in the white House, find a better ways of managing them?We're finding just now and how resilient is the system, the overall system of rules based trade to the challenges that, uh, president. UMP who appears not to have studied the most favoured nation provisions when he was at business school.
Um, how much?Is it possible to, to preserve the structures that were established in the GATT and then carried forward into the WTO?
12:32
12:32
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thanks, David, for this question. And, uh, good to see you in a good shape. Uh. And I answer your question very bluntly and frankly. Mr. Trump is not a serious problem for world trade. I have the view that for many reasons, he's a serious problem for his country. I have a view that in geostrategic issues, uh, when he, uh, keeps saying that Greenland should become American, he is a problem for us. But I don't think trade is.
Although his belief in tariffs and in administering trade from the white House desk is the way to go, I think this is totally hyper inflated. The US is 13% of world imports, one three. If the remaining 87% keep their head cool, which is what they are doing so far. This is not a destabilization of the system. It. Facto means that the US have left the WTO, not the jury, but in reality. And they will not leave the WTO.
Uh, the jury for a simple reason, which is that one of the agreements which the WTO administers is the trade related intellectual Property Agreement, which protects intellectual property in international trade and in the US, were to lose this guarantee. You can imagine the impact it would have on the US economy. So that's where we are. Uh, they have disposed of the dispute settlement system for disputes with them. Although, as I already said, another system which is working reasonably well, uh, has been promoted by the European Union and a few and a few others.
This the Trump trade issue is not existential. Now, whether another administration not led by Mr. Trump, uh, would go back to where we were 20 years ago. No, uh, we've already seen during the Obama and the Biden administration, uh, a. Mixing of, uh, the US from WTO. The basic reason being that they're problem number one is China. And they believe that. Today, the WTO system does not properly address the problems the US has with China.
And by the way, on this I would rather be on their side because I also believe that as of today. And that was not my view. 10 or 20 years ago, the WTO, as it stands as it is, does not properly address the Chinese problem, not least. And I won't enter into technical details, uh, because the disciplines of WTO on subsidies are extremely weak, uh, and much. Weaker than one in reality, when you look at the procedural requirements for questioning whether a Chinese subsidy is impacting your own competitive position.
So the US is not the problem. The way disciplines of WTO are structures is becoming a problem. And to answer your question, David, I think the concept, the the direction forward is to make a number of VW disciplines more flexible.
Although his belief in tariffs and in administering trade from the white House desk is the way to go, I think this is totally hyper inflated. The US is 13% of world imports, one three. If the remaining 87% keep their head cool, which is what they are doing so far. This is not a destabilization of the system. It. Facto means that the US have left the WTO, not the jury, but in reality. And they will not leave the WTO.
Uh, the jury for a simple reason, which is that one of the agreements which the WTO administers is the trade related intellectual Property Agreement, which protects intellectual property in international trade and in the US, were to lose this guarantee. You can imagine the impact it would have on the US economy. So that's where we are. Uh, they have disposed of the dispute settlement system for disputes with them. Although, as I already said, another system which is working reasonably well, uh, has been promoted by the European Union and a few and a few others.
This the Trump trade issue is not existential. Now, whether another administration not led by Mr. Trump, uh, would go back to where we were 20 years ago. No, uh, we've already seen during the Obama and the Biden administration, uh, a. Mixing of, uh, the US from WTO. The basic reason being that they're problem number one is China. And they believe that. Today, the WTO system does not properly address the problems the US has with China.
And by the way, on this I would rather be on their side because I also believe that as of today. And that was not my view. 10 or 20 years ago, the WTO, as it stands as it is, does not properly address the Chinese problem, not least. And I won't enter into technical details, uh, because the disciplines of WTO on subsidies are extremely weak, uh, and much. Weaker than one in reality, when you look at the procedural requirements for questioning whether a Chinese subsidy is impacting your own competitive position.
So the US is not the problem. The way disciplines of WTO are structures is becoming a problem. And to answer your question, David, I think the concept, the the direction forward is to make a number of VW disciplines more flexible.
12:36
12:36
12:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Uh, thank you and thank you very much, Pascal, for this session. It's been fascinating so far. And it will continue to be in listing the four problems you mentioned us the way the WTO is organized, um, trade and environmental nexus and China, we've heard about two of those. What about the way the WTO is organized itself?I kind of grew up in politics thinking the World Trade Organization was this body that would ensure that countries would negotiate with each other and would shore up how the rules based system actually, uh, happens and, and how it would continue.
Well, the rules based system is being chipped away. So, um, one of the options that people have undertaken who are members of the WTO has been to revive the negotiation function by negotiating smaller plurilateral agreements amongst like minded groups. And we've heard a bit of that because of the recent ministerial meeting. Can you tell us what your view is of that process now, and does it have a future?
Well, the rules based system is being chipped away. So, um, one of the options that people have undertaken who are members of the WTO has been to revive the negotiation function by negotiating smaller plurilateral agreements amongst like minded groups. And we've heard a bit of that because of the recent ministerial meeting. Can you tell us what your view is of that process now, and does it have a future?
12:37
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Yes. Uh, indeed. Is part of what I just called the Flexibilization. Uh, the problem with WTO is twofold. First, it does not work efficiently as compared to other international organizations. And the source of that is the mistrust that remains after decades and decades between the members and the Secretariat, the Secretariat, and the WTO. Uh, is not, uh, powerful enough in the system, given the way decisions are taken. Uh, let me just take an example.
Uh, if the. DG or the Secretariat of WTO believes there's a problem there and that this should be fixed by negotiating an amendment to agreement A, B, or C, this is not just possible. There is no authority for the DG over to say, ladies and gentlemen, you have a problem. We believe that this problem can be described as such. Here are a few options to fix this problem. Now up to you to decide this simple way of working is not available.
So that's the first part. And the second one, of course, is, uh, this, uh, rules of consensus, which in a way, uh, is very much like unanimity. And there are normally differences between consensus and unanimity and which is why the plurilateral, uh, way, uh, is to be opened. Now it exists by authority of the members, the members today can collectively, by consensus, allow a number of members, uh, to go plurilateral, i.e. have a trade regime between themselves that might, that is more open or more regulated than others, uh, for some time.
For the moment, this has resulted in very few that plurilateral agreements. And there is, for instance, one which is a well known one in public procurement. What is happening now?And we see that in the judicial system. And we saw that in the last, uh, WTO ministerial conference, is that a number of countries who get sick. Waiting. Uh, for the others to agree that they would go plurilateral. They just do it. And this, in my view, is a way to transform part of this reality.
If the members do that, uh, I will, I will, uh, on top of what can be done bilaterally originally, I will support that.
Uh, if the. DG or the Secretariat of WTO believes there's a problem there and that this should be fixed by negotiating an amendment to agreement A, B, or C, this is not just possible. There is no authority for the DG over to say, ladies and gentlemen, you have a problem. We believe that this problem can be described as such. Here are a few options to fix this problem. Now up to you to decide this simple way of working is not available.
So that's the first part. And the second one, of course, is, uh, this, uh, rules of consensus, which in a way, uh, is very much like unanimity. And there are normally differences between consensus and unanimity and which is why the plurilateral, uh, way, uh, is to be opened. Now it exists by authority of the members, the members today can collectively, by consensus, allow a number of members, uh, to go plurilateral, i.e. have a trade regime between themselves that might, that is more open or more regulated than others, uh, for some time.
For the moment, this has resulted in very few that plurilateral agreements. And there is, for instance, one which is a well known one in public procurement. What is happening now?And we see that in the judicial system. And we saw that in the last, uh, WTO ministerial conference, is that a number of countries who get sick. Waiting. Uh, for the others to agree that they would go plurilateral. They just do it. And this, in my view, is a way to transform part of this reality.
If the members do that, uh, I will, I will, uh, on top of what can be done bilaterally originally, I will support that.
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamy. I'm very interested in in your last answer. It really brings me nicely to my own question, which is, what would you say?Apart from almost the unilateral, um, direction, what what does the WTO need to do to promote services trade. Um, in the new, in today's world, financial services, digital telecommunications and professional services and mobility. And what steps would you propose and how realistically do you think you could achieve them?That's the first one.
And I'll give you my supplementary. Are there lessons to be learned from any of the other trade deals we've seen?See on?Financial services or professional services or indeed the US, Mexico, Canada.
And I'll give you my supplementary. Are there lessons to be learned from any of the other trade deals we've seen?See on?Financial services or professional services or indeed the US, Mexico, Canada.
12:43
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Yes. Uh, I mean, that's, uh, an excellent question. Obstacle to trade in goods. Uh, tariffs and subsidies. Obstacle to trade in services are regulations. And. If you compare goods and services, goods are more globally regulated than. Services. So the problem in opening trade in services is regular. Is reduce the obstacle to trade like always. And in this case the obstacle to trade is a regulatory discrepancy.
Yeah. For instance, EU or UK and US, uh, financial services trade. The real issue is uh the, the prudential regulation of capital markets. Uh, if you look at the problem of hormone beef issue is, uh, this discrepancies in what is deemed to be healthy in the US and what is deemed to be healthy on our side. If it's about, uh. Pesticide residues in flowers. So we, we have to. Try and move to either more regulatory convergence in services or mutual recognition, which is like regulatory convergence with an added layer of trust, which is, I believe you have good reasons to do it this way.
Please believe me that I have to good reason to it that way. But doing it your way or my way will not prevent us from exchanging services, which is what we did within the European Union with the internal market. So the question is, and this is a tricky question, what's the right body that. Can. Lead to regulatory convergence in many areas. Uh, and this is complex. Uh, I personally believe more should be given to the international Standardization organization, which is not a well known, uh, first, uh, first rank international organization, but which in reality plays an enormous role in, uh, in the streamlining of a number of regulation and certifications and liberalisation.
So the real question is, can we should we?Promote regulatory convergence or mutual recognition?Yes. Can we do that efficiently with the system we have today?I think we are we are not there yet. We have an infra capacity. If you look, for instance, and I've been working on that, uh, with the Institute for Race and Time Machine, for instance, that where where are we on I, you know, on, on artificial intelligence, uh, today in terms of. Convergence that would allow a lot of exchange in the future.
I processed systems, uh, we are far from having the necessary convergence capacity. So there is a discrepancy between the, our level of globalization and our level of capacity to keep moving forward because of administrative and regulatory reasons.
Yeah. For instance, EU or UK and US, uh, financial services trade. The real issue is uh the, the prudential regulation of capital markets. Uh, if you look at the problem of hormone beef issue is, uh, this discrepancies in what is deemed to be healthy in the US and what is deemed to be healthy on our side. If it's about, uh. Pesticide residues in flowers. So we, we have to. Try and move to either more regulatory convergence in services or mutual recognition, which is like regulatory convergence with an added layer of trust, which is, I believe you have good reasons to do it this way.
Please believe me that I have to good reason to it that way. But doing it your way or my way will not prevent us from exchanging services, which is what we did within the European Union with the internal market. So the question is, and this is a tricky question, what's the right body that. Can. Lead to regulatory convergence in many areas. Uh, and this is complex. Uh, I personally believe more should be given to the international Standardization organization, which is not a well known, uh, first, uh, first rank international organization, but which in reality plays an enormous role in, uh, in the streamlining of a number of regulation and certifications and liberalisation.
So the real question is, can we should we?Promote regulatory convergence or mutual recognition?Yes. Can we do that efficiently with the system we have today?I think we are we are not there yet. We have an infra capacity. If you look, for instance, and I've been working on that, uh, with the Institute for Race and Time Machine, for instance, that where where are we on I, you know, on, on artificial intelligence, uh, today in terms of. Convergence that would allow a lot of exchange in the future.
I processed systems, uh, we are far from having the necessary convergence capacity. So there is a discrepancy between the, our level of globalization and our level of capacity to keep moving forward because of administrative and regulatory reasons.
12:46
12:46
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
TPP. Which. Always thought is a. You. Basically, in the system you have. The WTO for all system. And then you have a regional systems. And then you have bilateral systems. As you go to. More specifically open trade. TPP is, in my view, the best standard today available to cope with what you have in mind as compared to other systems. Leaving aside, of course, the internal market of the EU, which is something very specific.
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:49
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah, that's that's the key question on this nexus between the trade expansion and environment protection, which I mentioned at the beginning. My answer to that is yes, the carbon. Border adjustment. And I was one of the intellectual fathers of the European one when we started working on that in the at the end. I mean, in 2019, 2020, this is one way to reconcile trade expansion with the problem you have of differentiated carbon pricing in different countries. So in theory.
In theory, global market capitalism has a simple solution to this tension, which is let's have a common price of carbon. We all know that this is a. Unfortunately, pie in the in the sky. Uh, if we would all agree to properly price the external, the externalities of our production system, we would have no problem. We are not there. So the issue is where can this relationship be better addressed than where we are now?And this is a foreign problem.
The WTO has a Committee on Trade and Environment, but many developing countries believe that this committee is not the place to discuss about trade and environment. Uh, the, uh, UNF triple C system has. And if you look at the Paris Agreement, some trade related components. But developed countries believe that, uh, cops are. Not the place to discuss that. Hence, by the way, an initiative which Brazil took, uh. Last year, and which I'm part of which is to create a sort of.
Side forum, which is not the WTO, which is not the Cop, which is sort of informal round table where moving forward, something of a proper balance between what is allowed and what is not allowed in the name of protecting the environment through some trade restrictions. It being understood that in many cases, trade opening is good for the environment. If Saudi Arabia, uh, starts, uh uh. Stops producing wheat and by its wheat on the international market. Uh, this is a great good news for environment and water.
So it's not it's not the one sided equation, but I think for the moment, we have this sort of forum dispute between basically north and South. And as we know, and for understandable reasons, uh, the north south relations permeate, uh, enormously. Uh, the environment, governance or the bits and pieces of environmental governance we have. So this is something where we have to move forward. And it's again, an area where I believe that, I mean, UK and the continent are exactly on the same sort of principle line, ideological vision.
I think there is nothing of a difference between between UK and the continent on things like this, which is where and that may be my final point, if that's the last question, which is where is sort of Mark Carney like, uh, coalition or the Plurilateral or the variable geometry part of how trade regulation and trade disciplines can now be created and administered is, I think, the way forward. Uh, we are in a world which is inevitably, unfortunately, more brutal, uh, more. Turbulent. As you said at the beginning, Mister Chairman.
Uh, more more fragmented. And we have to find ways to navigate this in variable geometry in more flexible rules. This is necessary. And I still believe that overall, at the end of the day. Uh, the benefits of trade opening and many countries, uh, being able to exploit comparative comparative. Advantages which they can be in domestically is the way to go.
In theory, global market capitalism has a simple solution to this tension, which is let's have a common price of carbon. We all know that this is a. Unfortunately, pie in the in the sky. Uh, if we would all agree to properly price the external, the externalities of our production system, we would have no problem. We are not there. So the issue is where can this relationship be better addressed than where we are now?And this is a foreign problem.
The WTO has a Committee on Trade and Environment, but many developing countries believe that this committee is not the place to discuss about trade and environment. Uh, the, uh, UNF triple C system has. And if you look at the Paris Agreement, some trade related components. But developed countries believe that, uh, cops are. Not the place to discuss that. Hence, by the way, an initiative which Brazil took, uh. Last year, and which I'm part of which is to create a sort of.
Side forum, which is not the WTO, which is not the Cop, which is sort of informal round table where moving forward, something of a proper balance between what is allowed and what is not allowed in the name of protecting the environment through some trade restrictions. It being understood that in many cases, trade opening is good for the environment. If Saudi Arabia, uh, starts, uh uh. Stops producing wheat and by its wheat on the international market. Uh, this is a great good news for environment and water.
So it's not it's not the one sided equation, but I think for the moment, we have this sort of forum dispute between basically north and South. And as we know, and for understandable reasons, uh, the north south relations permeate, uh, enormously. Uh, the environment, governance or the bits and pieces of environmental governance we have. So this is something where we have to move forward. And it's again, an area where I believe that, I mean, UK and the continent are exactly on the same sort of principle line, ideological vision.
I think there is nothing of a difference between between UK and the continent on things like this, which is where and that may be my final point, if that's the last question, which is where is sort of Mark Carney like, uh, coalition or the Plurilateral or the variable geometry part of how trade regulation and trade disciplines can now be created and administered is, I think, the way forward. Uh, we are in a world which is inevitably, unfortunately, more brutal, uh, more. Turbulent. As you said at the beginning, Mister Chairman.
Uh, more more fragmented. And we have to find ways to navigate this in variable geometry in more flexible rules. This is necessary. And I still believe that overall, at the end of the day. Uh, the benefits of trade opening and many countries, uh, being able to exploit comparative comparative. Advantages which they can be in domestically is the way to go.
12:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. I have a supplementary question myself. Um, the dreaded word Brexit, which we rarely speak of around this table. Um, you were the European Trade Commissioner and something went something went wrong with the perception of the UK's view of the value that we got from the trade, from trade with Europe. And I'm asking this slightly to you personally, but what are your reflections on what you think went wrong, and how important do you think a realignment or some type of new framework operating with the EU would have in terms of our own trade benefit, because we can do dozens of bilateral treaties with New Zealand, a country I love.
Um, but the reality is it's the biggest trading partner in the world. It's on our doorstep. So the first question was going back to the philosophy of what you think went wrong in terms of how you were doing your job, in the sense of the belief of the benefits. And the second is, what would your advice be for this committee when looking at, uh, a relationship with European trade?
Um, but the reality is it's the biggest trading partner in the world. It's on our doorstep. So the first question was going back to the philosophy of what you think went wrong in terms of how you were doing your job, in the sense of the belief of the benefits. And the second is, what would your advice be for this committee when looking at, uh, a relationship with European trade?
12:54
12:54
12:54
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Is the the. UK political chemistry. Which has always been, uh, and I've been, you know, working in European issues for many, many, many years, which has always been a bit of a problem for reasons which it would be too long. To list. So my own sense is that the UK political system derailed at some time, and that made the difference in the on my view, this unfortunate day. Now, is this the end of the world?No.
Again, for fundamental reasons, I believe the United Kingdom remains a European country with European values, with European systems, with a European vision of the world which is framed by geography, history, culture. Uh, so the question is now how can we live, uh, in this situation?Uh, without, without damaging too much the UK economy, the cost of Brexit for the continent has been economically zero. The cost of Brexit for the continent has been to lose the clout of a major European country in the way the world is shaped, including, uh, in foreign policy or geostrategic questions.
This the first issue can be addressed. The second issue can be addressed. The first issue can be addressed if the UK lowlands violence remains. Aligned on uh, on the EU standards. The big problem for UK of leaving the European Union was not leaving the Union was not leaving the customs union was leaving the internal market. We all have to remember that we only got rid of the borders in 1992, when we had enough of a convergence in the way we administer our markets to suppress borders.
Inevitably, leaving the internal market was re-establishing a border, and the cost of the border is all the higher that there is a reality or a suspicion of misalignment in the rules you administer for goods and services. So on this, the solution is, and I'm not saying it's an easy equation. Uh, if I was to be, uh, a British politician, uh, because it's in a way keeping aligned, uh, while not having one to say on, on the standard, which is not a very comfortable political position on the other side.
Experience has shown that when it's about really serious things like Russia invading Ukraine, uh, the fact that the UK has left the European Union has not prevented what really matters, which is working together in the same direction, with the same willingness to defend our Ukrainian friends, uh, from this Russian aggression. Uh, so, uh, this this is where I would, I would put a sort of answer to your very complex question. Inevitably sketchy way trade wise, trade wise, I think there are many simple ways for the UK to remain.
Let's say, uh, aligned on. The European Union so that the inevitable negative consequences of Brexit are limited.
Again, for fundamental reasons, I believe the United Kingdom remains a European country with European values, with European systems, with a European vision of the world which is framed by geography, history, culture. Uh, so the question is now how can we live, uh, in this situation?Uh, without, without damaging too much the UK economy, the cost of Brexit for the continent has been economically zero. The cost of Brexit for the continent has been to lose the clout of a major European country in the way the world is shaped, including, uh, in foreign policy or geostrategic questions.
This the first issue can be addressed. The second issue can be addressed. The first issue can be addressed if the UK lowlands violence remains. Aligned on uh, on the EU standards. The big problem for UK of leaving the European Union was not leaving the Union was not leaving the customs union was leaving the internal market. We all have to remember that we only got rid of the borders in 1992, when we had enough of a convergence in the way we administer our markets to suppress borders.
Inevitably, leaving the internal market was re-establishing a border, and the cost of the border is all the higher that there is a reality or a suspicion of misalignment in the rules you administer for goods and services. So on this, the solution is, and I'm not saying it's an easy equation. Uh, if I was to be, uh, a British politician, uh, because it's in a way keeping aligned, uh, while not having one to say on, on the standard, which is not a very comfortable political position on the other side.
Experience has shown that when it's about really serious things like Russia invading Ukraine, uh, the fact that the UK has left the European Union has not prevented what really matters, which is working together in the same direction, with the same willingness to defend our Ukrainian friends, uh, from this Russian aggression. Uh, so, uh, this this is where I would, I would put a sort of answer to your very complex question. Inevitably sketchy way trade wise, trade wise, I think there are many simple ways for the UK to remain.
Let's say, uh, aligned on. The European Union so that the inevitable negative consequences of Brexit are limited.
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
You are absolutely correct. Which is why. Which is why I'm saying that the only. Rational, pragmatic solution to remain aligned is an uncomfortable political position. But you have to choose between either paying the price, which is pretty high, or suffering this uncomfortable position. And I think there is to be sketchy. There is a good way to do that. You can still proclaim to those in the who do not want things to be decided by Brussels, that the way you, uh, hunt Foxing is, uh, administered by you by UK law, but not, not the pesticide residues in flowers or the hormone content of beef, or the way the European trading system for emission permits works, because this is where it will cost you a lot.
12:59
12:59
13:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. I mean, we've come to the end of this fabulous session, and I'm so glad that many people on this committee have had a chance to work with you in the past. This is this is my personal first interaction, and I'm extremely grateful to you for your for your wide ranging discourse on the situation that we face in terms of world trade, the UK, the US and China and so on. Um, I extend an invitation certainly whilst I'm Chairman, if ever you are able to come and meet us in person in the House of Lords, we would be privileged to have you with us.
In the meantime, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I'd like to say thank you very much for your time, for what's been an excellent session.
In the meantime, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I'd like to say thank you very much for your time, for what's been an excellent session.
13:00
13:00
13:00