Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the report of the International Agreements Committee, and I very much support ratification of the Macolin convention. I will make a few brief general remarks then turn to the reservation, on which I have some specific questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and indeed the committee, asked the question, “What is the added value of the convention, given that we already comply with most of its terms?” The answer is that the convention deals with a phenomenon of a transnational nature, and our compliance is not sufficient to protect our society and our economy from this phenomenon. This is even more so because the convention seeks to protect a quintessentially British value, fairness in sport. Some of the figures in the underlying documentation about the values involved in match fixing may seem relatively small—Europol estimated it at about €120 million—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, just pointed out, this is part of a much bigger phenomenon of organised crime, so it is very important that we deal with it.

It is also important to note that the convention would not create a new international jurisdiction or expand an existing international jurisdiction. There is no mechanism under the convention for any international court or tribunal to issue a binding judgment or render a binding award. It is a mechanism of co-operation and improvement through the exchange of information.

Another question that has been asked is why we should have a European convention when we are dealing with a global phenomenon. I suppose the simple answer is that this is the instrument that we have now; there is no UN convention on sports manipulation. Also, Council of Europe conventions may be signed by non-member states, and in fact the Macolin convention has already been signed by Australia and Morocco. Japan has also expressed an interest in signing the convention. I was reading about the visit of a Japanese delegation to the Council of Europe last July, which reiterated Japan’s interest in signing the convention. Japan has proposed that the 20th Asian Games, which are starting next week, would benefit from international monitoring co-ordinated by the Group of Copenhagen, which is the network of national platforms established under the convention.

There is every reason, therefore, to believe that the convention will be successful beyond the territory of the member states of the Council of Europe. By the way, that is not uncommon. The first Convention on Cybercrime—the Budapest convention of 2001—includes many non-European parties, including the United States. Also, the Anti-Doping Convention, which was mentioned previously, includes non-European member states. Perhaps the Government can tell us whether they intend to promote membership of the convention by non-member states of the Council of Europe in future.

On the reservation, Article 19(1)(d) of the convention provides that state parties adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure that the offences that must be established pursuant to the convention can apply not only in respect of offences committed within their territory but for offences committed outside the territory where the alleged offender is a national of or a person with habitual residence in the country. In effect, if we accepted the obligation in Article 19(1)(d), we would need to have offences that apply to our nationals and residents in the United Kingdom, even if the conduct took place entirely outside of our jurisdiction. Article 19(2) permits state parties to make reservations to Article 19(1)(d) and exclude the application of that provision. That is the reservation that we intend to make.

I understand the policy reasons behind the reservations. Investigating and prosecuting extraterritorial offences is, as a matter of both policy in principle and practice, quite complex, and we should be quite careful about accepting a binding obligation to do so. It is also the case, as the committee report points out, that a number of other countries have similar reservations, although their reservations are quite interesting. The Poles, for example, have made a reservation only in respect of residents but not in respect of nationals, so they would exercise criminal jurisdiction in respect of nationals committing the offences covered under the convention overseas but not in respect of residents. France has instead said that it will exercise jurisdiction for extraterritorial offences only where the conduct in question was also criminal in the other jurisdiction and where there is a request from the foreign state to exercise jurisdiction; that seems to me to be a very sensible approach.

Our reservation would simply say that we reserve the right not to apply Article 19(1)(d). My questions are in relation to a certain tension, it seems to me, between the FCDO memorandum and the written evidence from the DCMS on the reasons for the reservation. The Foreign Office memorandum said that the reservation

“reflects the UK’s existing jurisdictional framework and ensures that ratification does not require changes to established legal principles”.

The DCMS evidence to the committee said that

“the Government has concluded that there is a strong argument that existing UK law is consistent with the Convention’s overall objectives”,

and that the UK will not be prohibited from

“prosecuting offences in a way that meets Article 19(1)(d) completely”,

but the reservation gives

“a degree of flexibility in the event the factual circumstances or the precise charges applicable are such that a prosecution cannot be brought in a particular case, so as to avoid a risk of breaching the terms of the ratification”.

I was a little bit confused. Would we be able to prosecute nationals or residents for extraterritorial offences if we chose to do so, which is what the DCMS memorandum seems to suggest or, as the FCDO memorandum appears to suggest, would we need to change some of the established legal principles to investigate and prosecute nationals or residents in respect of those offences?

There is a bit of tension there, but maybe it is just a question of different formulations for the same point. In that case, it is important to understand whether any changes to the existing legal framework are deemed necessary to investigate or prosecute, if we so choose, nationals or residents in respect of offences committed outside the territory. Even with these questions in mind, I very much remain a supporter of this convention. I hope that we can proceed to ratification speedily and that the United Kingdom will become a leader in promoting compliance with this convention.