Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on the Bill and support it. My contribution to your Lordships debate relates to Clause 5, ““Corruption in sport””. I declare an interest as chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit of the International Cricket Council and I also give ethical compliance advice to other international sporting bodies. Is there an ongoing problem with corruption in support? If there is, will Clause 5 make a beneficial contribution to dealing with the problem? There certainly is a significant challenge to the integrity of sporting events by sportsmen and others fixing the result or part of a sporting event to enable a betting coup. Much has been achieved by national and international governing bodies for sport to minimise or prevent the problem, but a great deal remains to be done. The roots of the problem are very basic and very simple. In recent times, the coming together of three developments has created a fertile and tempting environment in which it is relatively easy to fix a sporting event, or part of it, for betting purposes. First, visual imagery of live sporting events is now omnipresent through digital and satellite TV, computer screens, mobile phones and other handheld devices. So at any time in any place in the world, gamblers can watch and monitor the progress of live sporting events on a screen. Secondly, and simultaneously, gamblers can now bet via a mobile phone, online or in person with betting exchanges, betting shops or on-site at sporting events. In some countries, the betting is with unlicensed and indeed unlawful bookmakers. That betting is also 24 hours a day worldwide. Instant gratification or disappointment for gamblers is provided by watching and betting on live sporting events 24 hours a day anywhere in the world. The third development, in some ways the most sinister and important, is the opportunity now to bet on who will lose as well as who will win during a sporting event. Although a sportsman cannot guarantee that he or his team will win, he can most certainly guarantee that they will lose. That has transformed sporting gambling and the potential for corruption in sporting events. The tempting and very profitable prospect for a corrupt sportsman is that working alone or with others he can fix the outcome of a sporting event, or part of it, and achieve a very significant betting coup. The betting analogy that I often draw is that the corrupt sportsman creates the equivalent of knowing in advance when the roulette wheel is going to land on red or black. Imagine the betting potential if you knew that. Even better, by fixing a part of a sporting event—say, fixing to bowl two wides in a particular over of a cricket match—he creates the equivalent in betting terms of knowing in advance when the roulette wheel is going to land on an individual number, thus enabling a massive betting coup because of the long odds that you can obtain on such an event. In cricket in the 1990s, match fixing brought the international game to its knees and disgrace to cricket legends such as Hanse Cronje and other international captains. The problem threatened the integrity and financial structure of the game. Some of that match fixing was linked to organised crime and even terrorism. But cricket is not alone now. Horse racing, soccer, tennis and other sports all have their problems. The sums of money involved are huge. In some countries, it is now more lucrative to engage in sports corruption than drug dealing or robbery. Up to $1 billion is bet worldwide on a single one-day international cricket match in some important tournaments such as the World Cup. If that is the background and the current challenge, how will Clause 5 or something like it contribute to the solution? Clause 5 is a valiant attempt to make a real contribution and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on raising the profile of the problem and including a response in the Bill. However, I have some concerns. In particular, I feel that the clause is too ambitious and too wide in breadth of concept by seeking to protect the integrity of sport and by severing any causal connection with gambling as the motivation for the corrupt behaviour. When the Gambling Act 2005 was drafted, I encouraged the inclusion of a provision to deal with sports corruption linked to gambling. I am very pleased to say that Section 42 of the Act creates the offence of cheating at gambling. In essence, a person commits an offence if he cheats at gambling by actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with, "““a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates””." I realise that the Act is intended to protect the integrity of gambling first and foremost and that Clause 5 is intended first and foremost to protect the integrity of sport, but without the linkage to gambling as the motivation for the corruption, what else might Clause 5 embrace? Is Clause 5(3)(a) intended to include, for example, challenges to the integrity of a sporting event through performance-enhancing or performance-inhibiting drugs for sportsmen or animals taking part in an event? It could be argued that, as drafted, it probably does. Will Clause 5 be able to distinguish between corruption and extreme gamesmanship? Both may threaten the integrity of a sport, but not necessarily to the point of requiring criminal sanctions. What if a player, through his behaviour, falsely achieves a benefit that alters the outcome of a sporting event? Let us say in soccer that he blatantly dives and gains a penalty or gets an opposition player sent off. His team wins, and wins promotion or avoids relegation, or gains entry to a European competition with massive financial benefit to him and the team. This is a threat to the integrity of the sport, but should it be embraced by the criminal law? The racial taunting of an opponent in sport is most certainly a threat to the integrity of a sport, but could it be embraced by the clause as drafted? The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is to be congratulated on raising the profile of corruption in sport, and I support his motivation, but I have some reservations. I think that the clause should probably be rethought. A link should be re-established between the threat to the integrity of sport and the underlying motivation for such action; for example, to enable a betting coup. I am also concerned that the effect of the clause will be difficult to limit and will unacceptably blur the lines between corruption and extremes of gamesmanship. I argue that the latter should be dealt with through the disciplinary processes of national and international governing bodies for sport and not through criminal law. In essence, however, I support the motivation behind the Bill, and I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it forward.