15
Examination of witnesses
Emma Floyd and Simon Mason.
Q25 The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. I formally welcome Emma Floyd, Director of Sport and Gambling at the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, and Simon Mason, Deputy Director of Sport at the same department. As ever, I remind you that this session is on the record, broadcast and transcribed.
This is our third and final public inquiry session on the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, known as the Macolin convention. I shall ask the opening question and then, after that, will defer to my colleagues, who will ask further and more detailed questions. I thank both witnesses and your department, the DCMS, for having given us written evidence. It is very helpful to have that as background before this session and, more generally, for the work that we are doing.
What is the Government’s assessment of the issue of sports manipulation and its impacts on the UK?
Emma Floyd: Thank you very much for having us today. We see sports manipulation and match-fixing as a very serious threat to the integrity of sport, public confidence and fair competition, and to the integrity of the regulated betting market. At the person level, it is a threat to vulnerable athletes too.
I expect that the Gambling Commission will have spoken to you about the fact that the incidence of reporting has gone up. The Sports Betting Intelligence Unit reports that, between 2024 and 2025, reporting went up by 28%. Much of that was in football and tennis, which reflects the global popularity and volume of those sports as opposed to systematic corruption in those particular sports. There has also been a large increase happening in the lower tiers of sport.
One of the other challenges is the increasingly international nature of match-fixing. You can have an athlete from a particular country, the sporting event in a different country and the intermediary who approaches the player might be from yet another country. Where the betting takes place could be somewhere else, the money can flow somewhere else and, ultimately, the person at the top orchestrating this, who could be involved in organised crime, could be in yet another country. Working across jurisdictions makes this increasingly complicated. The risks and complexities are increasing, and it is getting increasingly sophisticated. The speed at which actions can be taken is also continuing to increase. So it is a very serious threat.
In the UK, we have strong existing safeguards. The Sports Betting Intelligence Unit has existed since 2010. Governing bodies and law enforcement take this very seriously, as do betting operators. The system in the UK is incentivised to work together to tackle this. However, as I have set out, given the inherently global nature of this, we need to work and co-operate with other countries to tackle this together.
The Chair: Would you care to add anything to that, Simon?
Simon Mason: I do not have anything to add at this stage, Chair.
The Chair: I am just about to go to Lord Stevenson for his question. I should explain that the usual Chair of this committee is Lord Johnson. I am standing in for him at the moment. He is quite rightly with his family and is not here at the moment, but he may take part on occasion during the course of this meeting. I shall keep watch in case he wants to ask a question.
Q26 Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: Thank you very much, and thank you for your written evidence, which was very helpful. You have already explained that this is a very complicated and international issue, not just a national issue, and that much of the work you do involves other parties that are not based in this country but also depends on the work being done in the UK by the various bodies that are directly involved. Can you explain or speculate on what other measures you think might be necessary to get this fully in place as we move forward?
Simon Mason: Yes, I am very happy to, and thank you for the question. Through our assessment of the convention and how it applies in the UK, for which we undertook a full compliance assessment to assess how it works within our existing arrangements and structures, we concluded that our existing structures are sufficient to meet the requirements of the convention. Within the context of the wider support that we as a Government provide to the system to make sure it operates effectively, there are a number of elements that we pulled out.
Fundamental to the support of our system in this space, as set out in Article 7 of the convention, is the support provided to sports bodies. In our situation, sports governing bodies and national governing bodies of sports play a vital and integral role in the management of this kind of issue and tackling manipulation and corruption within sport. There are a number of areas in which we support them—most notably, the code for sports governance, which is co-owned by our arm’s-length bodies UK Sport and Sport England. That code provides advice and guidance and also sets of requirements for any organisation in receipt of public funding in the specific areas that they need to demonstrate they are taking forward. Included within that are requirements around governance and financial probity as a key element of that work. Both UK Sport and Sport England provide ongoing advice and guidance to sport governing bodies to support within that area.
Additionally, within the specific context of how to manage and address sport match-fixing issues, the work of the Sports Betting Intelligence Unit, which is part of the Gambling Commission, and the Sport Betting Integrity Forum provide vital structures through which are provided guidance, education and support to all organisations and sports organisations to ensure that they are able to manage these issues as effectively as possible. Within that context, any sports organisation is able to be part of that forum and to have those ongoing conversations and that ongoing support.
Ultimately, through our assessment, we concluded on that basis that the structures we have in place do provide the requirements as set out through the convention. That it is something that we can we can therefore take forward within that context. Just to build on Emma’s earlier point, we entirely recognise that this is an international issue so, through ratification and ongoing engagement with European and international partners, we can continue to build those international networks and support our sports organisations through those ongoing conversations.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: But my particular question, and I think you have answered it, is that there is nothing immediately coming down the track for other bodies that are associated with this just because of this approval of the convention.
Simon Mason: No additional requirements are being placed on organisations in this space. As I say, through our assessment, we are very much of the view that our current system meets the requirements of the convention.
Lord German: I would like to look at the legislative base for ratification, particularly in respect of the devolved Administrations, and Northern Ireland in particular. Given that Northern Ireland has its own legislative base, that some sports are done on an all-island basis and that regulation in Northern Ireland is complex to say the least—I use your words there—can you tell us what your assessment of Northern Ireland was? Also, what further information have you received from the devolved Administrations regarding their implementation measures? I know that this is a complex area and I have a supplementary question afterwards.
Emma Floyd: You are absolutely right: the convention applies UK-wide and things are different in different nations. The Gambling Commission is the regulator in England, Scotland and Wales, and it has some enforcement powers. It is very experienced working across those different legal frameworks, including with Police Scotland. In Northern Ireland there is no equivalent of the Gambling Commission. The regulation and licensing are shared across the Department for Communities, the courts and the district councils, so it is a different set-up.
The convention does not require regulation to happen in a particular way within a jurisdiction to be part of it, so that is not an issue. The convention is very much about how you co-ordinate and share information. The Gambling Commission’s SBIU is the national platform, and the Northern Ireland organisations provide information through that to go through the Copenhagen network, so there is no issue with sharing information. As part of the assessment, we talked to each of the devolved Governments about what the convention requires, and they looked at how things were operating in their jurisdiction, area and bodies. They—and we—were confident that, across the board, we are compliant with that.
On how we go about implementation, this is where things like having the forum and the strong relationships is really important, to make sure that we do this in a coherent and joined-up way and that information is being shared. Having the intelligence unit at the heart of it is really important. There are no issues with that information being shared.
You also touched on the fact that some of the governing bodies are all-Ireland. Again, they are quite experienced at having to operate across the different boundaries, often having to do different things if something relates to Ireland or to the UK within Northern Ireland. They certainly have not raised any concerns with us about implementing this, because much of it is in place already.
Q27 Lord German: I have two supplementary questions. First, the relationship between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland has always been difficult—let us put it that way. Given that the oversight that we are talking about concerns the police and the Governments on both sides of the border, is there information sharing among the police forces of both countries, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Is it certainly the case that government agencies in the Republic of Ireland are sharing that information?
For my second supplementary, it might be slightly confusing only to me but, in your submission, you said: “The devolution landscape is complex across these governance structures and the Devolved Governments were consulted during the ratification process, concluding that existing legislative and administrative arrangements across the UK are sufficient to meet the Convention’s requirements”. The interesting thing about that sentence is “concluding that”. It does not tell me whether it was concluded by your department or by everyone in general. If it is the latter, we ought to be clear on that: that each part of the United Kingdom has concluded that it has the right legislative arrangements. But it still leaves me concerned about the level of co-operation in Northern Ireland across the border with the Irish Republic.
Emma Floyd: I will answer your second question first, about who did the concluding. The devolved Administrations concluded—they were the ones who ultimately made the judgment—that what they had in place met the convention, and they provided us with assurance on that basis. That was their judgment.
To clarify what I said earlier about information sharing, I meant between the parts of the UK. I guess I was trying to highlight that there was no issue with the fact that the Gambling Commission does not have a Northern Ireland jurisdiction, with the platform being able to be used by Northern Ireland. Information sharing between Northern Ireland and Ireland is a different matter. Ireland is not in the same place as the UK on the convention at the moment. It is not signed up in the same way that we are, so it would not have the same legal requirement from this convention to share information as other countries that have ratified it would. I believe that information sharing is going on but, clearly, if Ireland also ratified this convention, that would be stronger.
Lord German: I am sorry to come back to you but, where there is an all-island sport, co-operation is necessary in order to ensure that you are able to deal with corruption if you find it. Are you saying that there is no hunt going on to try to ensure that the relationship with the Irish Republic is in place? Or is it simply that it is behind the curve and that it will catch up? It strikes me that the border is non-existent so far as those major, all-island sports are concerned. The regulation that is part of this, therefore, would also have to be fairly seamless. What you have described suggests that it is in place in Northern Ireland, but not in the Republic. I want to know whether there has been work to ensure that that the regulatory authorities on both sides of the border have been and will work closely on this matter. Can you reassure us that this work is ongoing, or whether it will be in the future?
Simon Mason: As you touch on, and in the context of the sports’ governing bodies, a number are on an all-island basis, and there are several elements where they obviously work across the whole of the island of Ireland to manage and deliver various different policy areas and spaces. We have a lot of confidence that they are able to work across different jurisdictions within that context.
The other point is that it comes back to the overall objective of the convention, which is to improve international engagement and international operations in these kinds of functions, and to address this kind of challenge. From my perspective, there is a strong opportunity in that space for continued international co-operation with partners, including Ireland, to continue those conversations. Clearly, it is a matter for the devolved Government in Northern Ireland to continue the conversations from the specific nature of the gambling and regulatory regime that exists across those two countries.
The Chair: It sounds to me as though this is something that you may pursue later. I appreciate you doing everything that is diplomatic in what is often a very sensitive situation, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said. What we are concerned about, however, is that we have carried out proper scrutiny of not only our current situation but how it will happen if the Government do then ratify the convention themselves. Thank you for that stage, so far. I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the next question.
Q28 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My question runs rather against much of the evidence you have given in answering the previous questions. You and other witnesses have said that the international dimension of the manipulation of sports competitions is on the rise, and is a very big part of the problems that you face and that we face together. The committee understands that only 17 member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the convention to date, while a further 25 have signed but not ratified, and therefore presumably do not apply it in legal terms. What is your understanding of why such a large number of member states have not yet ratified the agreement? Do you think that they are on the way to getting there? To what extent did this international dimension influence the British Government’s decision to go ahead now and ratify which, after all, we have taken some time to do?
Simon Mason: Just as a point of clarification for the committee, we understand that 26 countries, including ourselves, are yet to formally sign. So, 43 countries in total are signatories, of which 17 have ratified. To the wider point, it is an important question in the context of how much we want to continue to drive international co-operation on this issue. It is something that we, as the UK, see ourselves taking a leadership role in. I can touch a little bit on that. I cannot obviously speak to the individual circumstances of each nation that has signed and not yet moved to ratification. Within that context, we are aware that the constitutional arrangements of different countries are challenging and can be complex in this area. Therefore, moving to ratification has required some detailed work. Certainly, on our side, it has required a lot of detailed work to ensure that we are aligning and can deliver against the requirements of the convention.
We are aware that there have been issues with the EU’s ratification in relation to some specific circumstances regarding Malta. I believe that that has already come up before the committee, but we can potentially touch on that in slightly more detail. Within that context, we are aware that a number of EU nations have now moved to ratify, which we see as positive progress and a good development in that space.
The other area to touch on is that we have been encouraged to see that the convention is also being signed by nations that are not core members of the Council of Europe. We are aware that both Australia and Morocco have now signed the convention, which is another positive step forward in that wider context. Overall, our sense is that the more countries that ratify the convention, the better from our perspective. As the UK, we want to maintain a core leadership role, now and into the future as we continue to challenge this overall question.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Presumably, if we successfully ratify—of course, we will be reporting on this as part of that CRaG process—we will become a much more active protagonist with those countries that have signed but not ratified in order to get them to ratify. Is that the case?
Simon Mason: Very much so in terms of continuing the conversation with other partners to understand what challenges they have in that space. Clearly, we will not have a direct role in the specific framework arrangements of another nation, but we have a strong and important role in supporting that conversation. We also would become part of the follow-up committee. So we, and the Gambling Commission especially, will continue to be involved in those future conversations as the nature of this challenge and question changes. That is a really important part of that ongoing engagement that we continue to have with nations in this space. So, yes, we would continue to work with other partners to understand how they can do more in this area.
Q29 Baroness Lawlor: I am sorry I was a little late. I was chairing two other meetings. I tried to finish them as quickly as I could, but you are limited when there are guests.
We have heard during our evidence sessions much support for the treaty and for Britain ratifying it. However, I should like to ask on a contrarian point. What is the value to the UK, given that we already are in compliance with the treaty? Given that we are one of the leaders in sport, is there any practical value, other than voting rights, voting representation and leadership, given that we have got by without doing it? Some people would regard signing up to conventions and treaties as yet another encumbrance, which, though it does not now—I recognise that is true—will bring its own bureaucracies and demands that may not be our priorities. It has not been our priority to put it first for some time, and yet there seems to be a push now. I should like you to make the case against signing up, although I know there is a broad consensus in favour. What would be the disadvantages of not signing up or ratifying?
Emma Floyd: So what would be the disadvantages of signing up? I am not sure.
Baroness Lawlor: You have to advise your Ministers.
Simon Mason: Shall I answer? It is a really interesting question. From the fundamentals of how our frameworks operate in the United Kingdom, signing up to the convention does not shift our operational model for the regulation of this kind of activity. Therefore, there is potentially an additional burden, in that we are moving to more international engagement through this process. I suppose we would say, in reflecting on how the nature of the challenge is shifting and becoming more international within that context, that one of the big benefits of signing up is being part of those follow-up committees and that ongoing conversation.
The other area on which we would reflect is that 43 nations have signed up to the convention. That is really positive, but there are an awful lot of nations that are not part of that collective group. From our perspective, we need to ensure that our focus is fully international and not just on our Council of Europe partners that are signed up to the convention, because these issues clearly occur in other parts of the world that are not members of the convention. We support that wider engagement. There are a couple of challenges in that space, in making sure that we are continuing to look at this as a fully international issue and are engaging with different types of markets. We know that, across the wider gambling space, different markets are emerging in different parts of the world with different regulatory structures.
Baroness Lawlor: Given that, and that this convention will not tackle the very big international problems, such as the betting markets in Asia over which we have no control and some other Asian markets, is the convention not very limited? It may apply here—locally, as it were—but not globally. Is that not a real problem?
Emma Floyd: You are right: you need broad participation for this to be as successful as possible. There is a question about how far you try and how far you do not. Now that I have had time to think, I think it also depends on robust national implementation, because your effectiveness will always be the lowest common denominator of who is doing least well nationally.
Those are some of the things, but then there are evolving threats. There are arguments about why we would put our time and effort into doing it this way, if there are only around 40 other countries doing it this way and a lot more countries in the world. However, this is probably the best international agreement out there. Given what we have been doing, it seems like a really good way of working together more collaboratively. One practical benefit is the speed at which people are required to give us information, as opposed to it being done on good will, as it is at the moment. That is a practical benefit for the Gambling Commission in particular and its enforcement arm, which is one of the most tangible things that the convention gives.
Q30 Lord Boateng: Thank you for your evidence. Ms Floyd, you are director of sport and gambling within the department. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Lotteries Council. The World Lottery Association has said that: “The manipulations of sports competitions damages not only the integrity of sports, but also the reputation of the lottery and sports betting sector” worldwide. You, in your evidence, have made a compelling case for broad participation within the convention. Help us to understand then: given the delay due to the competing priorities of our Government in ratifying the convention, what are the particular reasons for moving forward with ratification at this time? You have pointed to broad participation, yet we have not ratified. Give us the arguments for ratification that I hope you have also given to Ministers.
Emma Floyd: Absolutely. Perhaps one of the other things worth talking about in terms of why ratification has taken a while is, as Simon mentioned earlier, the example of the Malta case, whereby Malta challenged the definition of illegal sports betting within the convention. It was withdrawn, but there was this question about what the definition is.
In most countries, like the UK, the definition is based on point of consumption—i.e., where the person who makes the bet is placed. In Malta, however, their licence is based on the point of supply. The view there is that there should be a passport model, whereby someone licensed in Malta should be able to provide betting products to anybody, anywhere in the single market. Subsequently, the European Court of Justice has determined that that does not trump an individual country’s laws. There had been quite a bit of debate around that, and having that clarity from the European Court of Justice has been helpful. It was an important bit of clarification in order to be able to ratify.
On your point about why now and the value of that, there would be a danger if we did not proceed with ratifying, because all the work that people currently do with us is on a good-will basis. They understand that our intention is to ratify and they can see us working towards that. They could choose to stop doing that. I do not know whether they would or not but, at the moment, they believe that we are on the bus with them and therefore they are sharing with us. If they saw us taking a different path for whatever reason, we may lose some of that information, whereas ratifying would mean a legal requirement that they must share with us.
We have talked quite a bit about how sophisticated the market is and how it is evolving. This voting seat on the follow-up committee is not just a governance thing but is really important, because it gives us the ability to shape the strategy about how we respond to these evolving threats, and how we share information together and work on the implementation across. There is a lot of value to be had in that, because this is a fast-moving, changing market. So having that voting seat and that voice at the table, so that we can learn together and shape, is very important, I would argue.
Lord Boateng: Those are the arguments for. What are the competing priorities that we have heard about? You case seems so compelling, but what are these competing priorities?
Emma Floyd: Historically, the Government have had many things happening. We had the pandemic for a number of years, which took up a lot of activity, and there was leaving the European Union, which also took up a lot of activity. That is part of the backdrop on the capacity within government to bring forward something very important, but there is a capacity limit, as always, and there have been some unusual circumstances over recent years.
Lord Boateng: Thank you for all that you do.
The Chair: I appreciate the final examples you gave of when Government have had to focus on specific dramatic events. What about the last two years, though? What priorities have meant that ratification has not been considered?
Emma Floyd: Over the last few years are when we have been seriously looking at this, having the conversations and assuring ourselves of what we have in place. So that is what we have been doing over the last couple of years. I think we probably have been doing that for a couple of years—have we not?
Simon Mason: Yes, I think so, alongside various other competing priorities that we can always go into, within the context that was touched on. There is the complexity that sits within the regime and the need to work across the nations to make sure that we have that clear understanding and have ensured that we are compliant as a nation, before ratification.
The Chair: Before I go to Lord Anderson, can I continue on that theme of competing priorities? I appreciate that all departments have significant priorities that they have to try to sort out. With regard to the Macolin convention, there is clearly an issue of international justice. How much work have you been able to do with other departments in the last two years? It has been a very busy two years—we have seen that in legislation here—but has it been possible to work with them to be in a position where you feel that you have cleared the ground and can move forward?
Emma Floyd: My take on that is that we are in a good place on the intelligence sharing and information aspect of things in thinking about prevention. To be frank, I think we have more to do on the enforcement side, working together through what that looks like going forward. There is a lot of work that national governing bodies are doing, but that often means you are catching the poor athlete who has probably been exploited in some way. Getting to the people at the top of the tree is much more challenging. How we work together on enforcement to make sure that we are going after the really bad guys is an area where, frankly, we still have more work to do off the back of ratifying the convention.
Q31 Lord Anderson of Swansea: I have a question on further reform. In your opening, Ms Floyd, you mentioned the increasing scale of the problem, the complexity and the way in which the malefactors are becoming more devious. The convention was launched in 2014, 12 years ago, and concluded in 2019. Is it showing its age a bit given these problems that you mentioned? What are the prospects of further reform? When we asked one earlier witness about further reform or change, she said that she thought the convention, given its global reach, should have been a UN convention rather than a European one plus the Council of Europe and various observer-status nations. Do you agree? What further reforms do you think are in prospect?
Emma Floyd: As I think I said earlier, this is the best available international agreement out there at the moment and the best framework. The Copenhagen network of platform information sharing is really positive with the speed that it brings and the common expectations that it sets.
I would also say that whoever wrote this was very smart about making it technology neutral. However people go about placing the bets, including in the more modern prediction products, they are all caught by it. A reasonable amount of future-proofing has gone into the drafting, which I think is really positive. I do not see any immediate issues with the drafting of the convention that need to be updated for the modern day, but it is about how we implement it: how we, together, go about making sure that there is robust national implementation, learn about evolving threats and share information. It is much more in the implementation where we need to keep agile, and I do not think that any of the wording in the convention prevents that.
On your point about what kind of convention we should have, clearly, as we have already talked about, the more countries that are signed up to working together and co-operating, the stronger it is. The fact that we have Australia, Morocco and Brazil looking at it now is very promising. There are obviously still many other parts of the world to cover, but this is a very important platform to be building from.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: There are parts of the world—
The Chair: Can I be cautious here? First, Lord Anderson, please do continue. Lord Johnson also his hand up, so I shall then go to Lord Johnson and to Lord Hannay.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: There are parts of the world where the problem appears most acute, such as Latin America and the Far East, which are outside the reach of the Council of Europe.
Emma Floyd: Yes, absolutely. I am sure that the Council of Europe would be happy for others to sign up to the convention, but you are right. This is not to say that this will solve all the problems, but it is certainly a very positive start. I personally do not know whether others would have been more likely to sign up if it had been a UN convention.
Q32 Lord Johnson of Lainston: Apologies; I am travelling at the moment, so I was not able to join you in person, but I greatly appreciate you both coming to give evidence to the committee. I have two questions that follow on from the theme that we have been discussing around enforcement and how the market has changed.
Prediction markets and polymarkets are now enormous markets around the world, not so much in the UK, but still to some extent here. That makes it harder to track illegal gaming or betting, because it is not through the single points of reference, which could be the gaming industry. Can you could talk a bit about how we are dealing with that new and ever-growing threat?
Secondly, a really important strand that has come through in this discussion and previous discussions is that we can sign as many treaties as we like, but unless we have proper enforcement in the UK, it will not make a great deal of difference. I have not really managed to get a handle on how much we are investing in enforcement and how much resource we are dedicating to making sure that we can track these international match-fixing issues.
Emma Floyd: As we know, in order to offer a product in the UK, you need to have a licence that is issued here. If people do not have that, they are operating illegally. Clearly, there will be people out there testing that. The Gambling Commission is—as I am sure it will have talked about—very alive to how markets and products are evolving, the pace of change and the need to work with colleagues across the world and within the country to keep abreast of those threats and to work out the best ways to target them at different points as it learns about them. It is not enough just to block a website; you have to look at other ways to tackle people’s ability to acquire customers, their ability to advertise, their ability to receive payments—the financial system in the UK is very supportive around how we try to block those happening—and their ability to maintain UK-facing relationships.
On your point about enforcement on that side of things, the Gambling Commission has a range of measures, not just prosecution. It offers cease and desist disruption notices, and 3,140 of those were done in the last year that we have data for. About 450,000 URLs were referred to Google and Bing to be investigated, of which 65% went on to be removed. So there is a lot of activity happening. There are also a lot of examples of national governing bodies banning people from sports, either short term or long term.
There are probably not so many prosecution cases, partly because of the complexity of meeting the high threshold. As you rightly say, as people become more sophisticated, that will continue to be a challenge. That is why it is really important that enforcement agencies and all bodies work together to try to tackle this and to have that intelligence gathering, prevention and information sharing as well.
Simon Mason: The only thing that I would add in terms of your specific question in relation to funding is that we are providing additional funding to the Gambling Commission as part of the Illegal Gambling Taskforce to address these kinds of issues. We are providing an additional £26 million in funding to the commission to support this very work. We have very active and live conversations with the commission about resourcing and any pressures it feels in this space to manage that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I just want to be clear about this: it seems to me that there is something of a false alternation here, because there is nothing preventing us joining a UN convention. If one day all the countries in the world wished to have a convention to deal with this international problem, we could join that at the same time as being in Macolin. It is not an either/or. If we had expressed an overriding preference for a UN one, we would probably end up for a very long time with nothing at all.
Emma Floyd: That is a very fair comment. The more people involved, the more complexity, the harder it is to get it over the line. You are absolutely right: signing up to this does not exclude us from being able to do something different if there are opportunities elsewhere. I completely agree.
Q33 Lord Boateng: If you look at the figures, the Government have announced a 25% increase to annual operator licence fees to help the Gambling Commission. The commission is drawing on £26 million of extra Treasury funding over three years, again specifically to scale up operations against unlicensed black market operators. However—and I wonder if this is where the problem is—despite all that and despite the fee increases, the regulator still has an estimated £4 million annual deficit and needs to find at least £8 million in efficiency savings. I have been around a bit and, when I hear “efficiency savings”, it tends to mean cuts. Is it in fact the reality that part of the problem in relation to ratification is that more money will have to be found from somewhere to pay for enforcement? Without enforcement, as all the evidence shows, ratification is literally not worth the paper it is printed on.
Emma Floyd: As I said earlier, it is not just about enforcement. It is also about prevention, intelligence gathering and info sharing. There are more tools in the framework than just the enforcement side of things. Your figures about the Gambling Commission are correct, and it does have a challenge about what it forecasts it might need versus what—
Lord Boateng: Versus what it has got.
Emma Floyd: Yes, versus what the consultation ultimately led to being able to justify giving it. It is currently working through exactly how it is going to live within its budget. It is for the Gambling Commission to answer on that. I take your point, however, that there will only ever be a finite amount of money, and therefore it will be for the regulator to prioritise, and we will work through that with them.
Lord Boateng: Will you not need another fee uplift then? The people who run the gambling outfits will have to find more money to pay for the enforcement, because why should the public pay? It is their industry and they are making money out of it, so why should they not pay more?
Emma Floyd: As you know, the levy is paid for by the industry. The figure is a decision for Ministers.
Lord Boateng: Certainly. We can make our recommendation to Ministers.
The Chair: The question has aroused a lot of interest. I turn to Baroness Lawlor, and then finish with Lord Anderson.
Q34 Baroness Lawlor: I think Simon Mason mentioned this £25 million, but my question is related to what was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. Was that £25 million out of the existing departmental budget and, in which case, what happened? Who suffered from the existing £25 million being given to the Gambling Commission, or was it additional Treasury money?
Simon Mason: Specifically, it was £26 million.
Baroness Lawlor: Oh, £26 million. I do beg your pardon.
Simon Mason: Yes, but that was an extra funding support for the commission, so it was a part of our overall spending package that we agree with the Treasury.
Baroness Lawlor: You took it out of your existing spending package?
Lord Boateng: No. The Treasury provided more.
Simon Mason: I think the Treasury provided more.
Baroness Lawlor: I see. Was that after an application, or whose idea was that?
Simon Mason: It would have been part of our overall negotiation and conversations with the Treasury.
Baroness Lawlor: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We have a final supplementary before we turn to the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, who has been waiting very patiently online.
Q35 Lord Anderson of Swansea: How many successful prosecutions have there been?
Emma Floyd: I am afraid that I do not know. We will have to ask the Gambling Commission and come back to you on that.
The Chair: Thank you. I am now going to call on Lord McDonald for our last question.
Q36 Lord McDonald of Salford: Thank you. I have a rather technical question to finish with. In your written evidence, you confirm that all amendments will be subject to ratification and therefore to scrutiny under CRaG. But you also say that if there is provision for amendments elsewhere in the treaty, the position may be different. Are there provisions for amendments elsewhere in the treaty? If so, what is the position on scrutiny in relation to these?
Emma Floyd: Thank you. Apologies: our response there was not as clear as it could have been. Just to clarify, Article 38 is the sole mechanism in the treaty for amendments. There are no provisions anywhere else in the convention which relate to its amendment, and therefore anything through Article 38 amendments would require parliamentary scrutiny via a CRaG process before ratification. Apologies, we were not clear on that in our written evidence.
Lord McDonald of Salford: You have been clear now. Thank you.
Q37 The Chair: We have just a little bit of time left. I would like to go back to something raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, on the issue of Northern Ireland. I have a follow-up question, and it is perhaps something you might like to go back to the department about and consider before responding to us, so that we can see it. I appreciate the sensitivity throughout all this. We heard from the Gambling Commission that Northern Ireland’s statutory offence of cheating could benefit from review by the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure it would sufficiently address the issue of cheating in gambling. This is required by the convention itself. Our question would be whether the Government are aware of this issue and, if so, can they tell us their overall view? We will provide that wording to you. I appreciate you may have to go to other departments to let them consider their response as well.
Emma Floyd: Thank you. I will say a few things here, because I have been in contact with colleagues in Northern Ireland before coming to talk to you to make sure I was abreast of their latest situation. The Minister for Communities in Northern Ireland absolutely agrees that the legislation is out of date and needs reform, and it is a matter of public record that they have said that. What they have also said is that it is not possible for them to make the level of regulatory changes to the Bill that they would need to make, and to scrutinise them, under the current mandate that they have. That is their view. Their officials are continuing to monitor and scope out the issues to inform any future gambling legislation that might be brought forward in the next mandate. They are working very hard on consumer protection within what they have today. That is their current position; perhaps I will leave it there for today.
The Chair: Our clerk will be in touch with you with regard to that. I am aware in asking that question, of course, that there is a new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so it would not have been proper to expect a full answer today. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much indeed for your contributions today. We expect to be able to publish our inquiry by the autumn. I know Governments use words such as “autumn”, and that these can be very extensive timeframes, but we are going to do it as soon as we can. Thank you very much indeed.
