Official Report 736KB pdf
The next agenda item is consideration of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome Richard Lochhead, Minister for Business and Employment, and his officials to the meeting.
We will move straight to the stage 2 proceedings.
The question is, that sections 1 and 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed?
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Section 3—Exception for charity auctions
Section 3 is on ticket touting. Amendment 3, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendment 4. I invite Jamie Halcro Johnston to move amendment 3 and speak to both the amendments in the group.
I will speak on behalf of Stephen Kerr to his amendments 3 and 4 in this first group on ticket touting. The amendments are modest, reasonable and entirely consistent with the committee’s stage 1 findings, but they address two important weaknesses in the bill as introduced—proportionality in the treatment of community fundraising and the bill’s limited ability to deal with online and cross-border touting.
Amendment 3 deals with proportionality. The bill exempts charities from touting offences, but it draws that line too narrowly. Across Scotland, community-controlled bodies, parent councils, community councils and schools routinely raffle or auction donated tickets to raise funds for pupils, local facilities and other causes. Those groups are not commercial enterprises, and they are certainly not touts. Their activities fall squarely into the category of legitimate, socially beneficial fundraising, but, as drafted, the bill would criminalise those activities if a school or community body sought to raise money by offering donated tickets. That cannot be what ministers intended.
Amendment 3 would therefore expand the exemption in a controlled and responsible way, recognising that community fundraising is not the target of that part of the bill.
At stage 1, the committee stressed that the bill must avoid overreach while still satisfying UEFA’s requirements. This is a clear example of where a small adjustment would avoid an unnecessary and unintended consequence without compromising the integrity of the touting ban.
Amendment 4 seeks to address a different concern: the territorial limits of the bill’s enforcement. Much touting now takes place online and is routed through platforms and sellers that might be operating elsewhere in the UK or abroad, but the bill regulates only what takes place in Scotland. The evidence that we heard makes it clear that that creates a potential weakness in enforcement.
Amendment 4 would not prejudice the right solution, and nor would it impose obligations on other Governments; it would simply require the Scottish ministers to report formally on the steps that they have taken to secure intergovernmental co-operation, including with the United Kingdom Government, the Welsh Government and the Government of Ireland, and to report early enough for any gaps to be addressed before the championship period. If the Government is already engaging formally, it should have no difficulty in setting out that work transparently to the committee and to Parliament. If the Government is not doing that engagement, the need for amendment 4 is all the greater.
Both amendments are constructive and proportionate. They would ensure that the bill does what it is supposed to do, which is to prevent touting that exploits fans, without inadvertently criminalising schools or community groups and without leaving enforcement gaps that undermine the purpose of the legislation. I invite the minister to respond clearly on those points and to consider accepting the amendments.
I move amendment 3.
As no other member wishes to speak, I invite the minister to speak to the amendments.
In lodging amendment 3, Stephen Kerr seeks to widen the exceptions for ticket touting in a way that would risk increasing scope for exploitation by touts. The purpose of the touting offence in the bill is to prevent those who are looking to resell Euro 2028 tickets for their own gain from doing so. We must therefore seek to keep resale exemptions as tightly drawn as possible, to avoid creating easy loopholes that some may try to exploit.
The current provision in the bill ties the charity auction exemption to charity registers where they exist. That provides strong assurance that those who claim the exemption are indeed charitable in nature and that any funds raised will be used entirely for charitable purposes. It also provides a clear way—through the published register—for enforcement bodies to identify whether an organisation that is seeking to utilise the exemption is eligible to do so.
Assurances would not be as strong if the exemption was widened to include the bodies that are set out in amendment 3. For example, there is no central register for community-controlled bodies, which would make verification more challenging. Further, the legislation that defines community-controlled bodies—the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015—does not set out to regulate those bodies and their use of funds. It might therefore be difficult to establish that moneys that are raised from an auction are used solely for charitable purposes.
Many Scottish schools and community groups are already charities, or are associated with registered charities, and would therefore be able to benefit from the exemption as it stands. Of course, it is open to those that are not currently registered to consider whether they can do so—after all, they have until 2028 to do so. For example, we know that there are already more than 400 Scottish charities that are associated with publicly funded schools. Those include parent-teacher associations, parent councils, after-school clubs, extracurricular groups and uniform banks.
It would be untrue to say that local groups cannot register as charities. More than half of the charities that are registered in Scotland work in their local areas, and more than two fifths of them operate locally in a specific place, community or neighbourhood.
On the point about registering, is there a concern that some organisations might fall foul of the provision because they are not aware that they have to register? What information will the Government provide on that? Will any advice or guidance be given to ensure that organisations fall within the law?
I am happy to consider further how we advertise the charity exemption to alert organisations to the fact that they can take advantage of that. We can certainly give some thought to that but, as I have outlined, the legislation has to be tightly controlled.
It would also be untrue to say that small groups cannot register. More than one quarter of Scottish charities have an income of less than £5,000, and two thirds have no paid staff and are run by volunteers.
Amendment 3 would increase the risk that the exemption could be exploited by those who claimed to be raising funds for charitable purposes but who were, in fact, seeking a profit. The Scottish Parliament has previously legislated on charity regulation, in part to give us exactly the assurance that we need in this case—that we can have confidence in how funds are raised and used.
Furthermore, section 3 includes conditions that, if satisfied, will enable charities that are based outwith Scotland to benefit from the exemption, thereby ensuring that there is no discrimination between Scottish charities and other charities. Amendment 3 does not include a mechanism to determine whether bodies that are equivalent to community councils, for example, should benefit from the exemption.
On amendment 4, we have a track record of producing bespoke legislation for major events in Scotland. We have done so again, with this bill, to meet UEFA’s requirements, in accordance with UEFA’s timetable and within the constraints on parliamentary time, given the 2026 election. We are in regular discussion with the Governments of other host nations to ensure a coherent approach. We understand that the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have no plans to introduce primary legislation, the Republic of Ireland has existing legislation that prohibits ticket touting, and the UK Government has indicated that it is still working through how best to deliver UEFA’s requirements.
I know that committee members will be interested in the UK Government’s announcement last month that it intends to explore possible legislative solutions to prevent live event ticket touting more generally. We will continue to engage with the UK Government as its proposals to address that issue and those relating to dynamic pricing take shape.
However, it is not for the Scottish ministers to make announcements for other hosting Governments. As such, we cannot commit to providing a meaningful report to the Parliament within the timeline that is set out in amendment 4, nor would it be in our gift to remedy that. There is a possibility that the UK Government will legislate for its jurisdiction beyond the proposed timeline for reporting.
Instead, I propose that amendments 10 and 12, which are on “Review of Act” and which will be debated later, provide assurance that the Scottish Government will report to the Parliament on engagement with the other host nation Governments as part of reporting on the impact of the legislation.
Therefore, I encourage members to resist amendments 3 and 4.
I invite Mr Halcro Johnston to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 3.
As I said, I am speaking to the amendments on behalf of Stephen Kerr. Mr Kerr, Mr Whittle and I met the minister to discuss the issue, and I think that Mr Kerr would be happy to have further discussions. On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 3.
Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.
The question is, that schedule 1 be—[Interruption.] I am sorry—it has been a while since I have done this.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
After section 5
Amendment 4 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to
Sections 7 to 10 agreed to.
After section 10
Amendment 5, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, is grouped with amendment 11.
Amendments 5 and 11, in my name, are on compensation for existing street traders. The amendments arise directly from the evidence that the committee took at stage 1, and they reflect a real concern among traders who operate lawfully and who will be significantly affected by the restrictions in the bill.
The bill requires Glasgow City Council to offer alternative trading arrangements to licensed traders who are displaced from the event zones. On paper, that sounds reasonable, but, in practice, as we have heard, the alternative sites might be well away from fan zones, the stadium and the busy routes where traders would normally expect to earn the bulk of their income. Being moved from a prime location to a low footfall site is not an alternative in any meaningful commercial sense. Indeed, for many traders, particularly small independent operators, it could mean losing the most lucrative trading days that they could have had in years.
08:45It is important to be absolutely clear about this: these restrictions are not being imposed for reasons of public safety, because of the needs of the city or to support the local community. They are being imposed to meet UEFA’s commercial requirements and to protect the exclusive rights of global sponsors. If the restrictions force small Scottish traders off pitches that they have operated from for years, it should not be the Scottish taxpayer who bears the cost.
Therefore, amendment 5 would require ministers to make formal representation to UEFA, seeking funding for a compensation scheme that would reflect the genuine loss of revenue that traders might face. It also seeks to ensure that any scheme can operate only if UEFA funds not just the compensation itself but the full administrative costs of running it. That is essential, because we cannot have a situation in which public money is being quietly used to underwrite UEFA’s commercial model.
Amendment 11 is a simple consequential amendment that would ensure that the regulation-making powers aligned with the scheme, should UEFA agree to fund it.
Traders are not asking for special treatment—they are asking for fairness. They are willing to adjust, and they recognise the importance of hosting major events. However, they should not be asked to absorb financial losses created solely to protect the interests of a large Euro organisation. The amendments provide a balanced and reasonable way of addressing that injustice, and I invite the minister to confirm whether the Government has already made any such representations to UEFA—and if not, why not—and to consider supporting the amendments.
I move amendment 5.
I can understand why Jamie Halcro Johnston thinks that, in specific instances where traders have made a loss, that loss might be compensated, but I point out that there will also be significant circumstances in which traders gain additional opportunities. They might well be in other places, but there will be opportunities that would not have been there if the tournament had not been happening. Can he say, either in an intervention now or in his closing comments, whether it is his view that the Government ought to try to establish a situation in which there are no losses and no benefits—and if so, tell us how he intends to recoup the additional benefits that will be gained—or is he trying to suggest that losses should be compensated and benefits pocketed?
Mr Harvie makes an important point. Obviously, there will be benefits to the city and to many businesses in the city, but our concern is with the specific sites that certain traders have been operating from for a considerable time. They will not benefit to the same extent—indeed, they might not benefit at all—if they lose those sites. Overall, there will, of course, be benefits to the city and to many businesses, but the concern is that certain traders might lose out because of the approach, despite all the tourists, visitors and football fans coming in.
I am unclear about Jamie Halcro Johnston’s thinking with regard to street traders being moved from one site to another, and how we can disaggregate the losses from the benefits and develop a compensation scheme that could not be taken advantage of pretty ruthlessly.
Mr Halcro Johnston has been telling us about what traders are asking for, but what process has he followed to find that out? I would also just note the point that Neil Bibby, I think, made in an earlier evidence session that this is pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal with UEFA. It calls the shots. If you really want to host the championships, do you not feel that these are pointless amendments?
I will come back on that question at the end, convener.
That is fine. I call the minister.
It is important that small businesses, including street traders, can benefit from the opportunity of Scotland hosting Euro 2028. We want to make things as easy as possible for those affected by event zones, which is why the bill ensures that there will be guidance on the measures that will be put in place and that street traders who cannot trade where they normally would will be offered alternative arrangements. For example, the licensing authority may waive the application fee for a temporary licence at an alternative location for those whose current licence would normally allow them to trade in the event zones, but who, because of this legislation, will not be able to do so. The measures are consistent with the legislation that the Scottish Parliament passed for Scotland to meet the conditions of hosting Euro 2020 matches.
I understand that Glasgow City Council has provided the committee with reassurance on some of those points. It has indicated that the council’s street trader web page makes potential applicants and licence holders aware of possible restrictions on trade that might come into force for the tournament.
However, compensation can only be paid when there is an actual loss. As this is a one-off tournament, the Euro 2028 matches at Hampden park will provide street traders with an opportunity that is over and above what they could expect in any other year. Street traders are also not prohibited from trading outright during the rest of the tournament. As I have stated, we are putting measures in place to support street traders to trade outwith the event zones.
We will continue to work with Glasgow Life, Glasgow City Council and other partners to involve local businesses and communities in the delivery of Euro 2028, but we agree with UEFA and UK & Ireland 2028 Ltd on the point that there is no loss to be compensated. There is therefore no basis upon which to make the kind of representations to UEFA that amendment 5 would require.
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for setting out his rationale for amendments 5 and 11, but I hope that he might now agree that they are not needed and that he will not press amendment 5 or move amendment 11. Should he not agree, I encourage members to resist the amendments.
The minister said that there is no loss to be considered, but we do not know that. If a business is moved away from a city centre location to an alternative location, for example, that alternative location might not be as beneficial to that business as its existing location. An alternative site is not necessarily a site that will allow the business to do the same amount of business that it would have done, even if there are large numbers of people.
Given that some of the fan zones will have other competition in prime locations, I am afraid that I do not accept that the guarantees that the alternative locations—
Will Mr Halcro Johnston take an intervention?
Of course.
I have a point of clarification. I know that everybody will laugh when I say that all roads lead to Paisley, but they do. St Mirren are in a cup final at Hampden on Sunday and a street trader has appeared out of nowhere and is doing reasonable trade both at a pitch in the town centre and, as he is quite mobile, at the games. Is it not the case that the entrepreneurial spirit of the individuals who are running these businesses means that they will find a way to sell their goods?
I applaud Mr Adam for getting St Mirren into the conversation so early. His comment about the street trader is very much to the point. A mobile street trader can go where they think the business will be, but this is a restriction on being able to go where the business is.
Glasgow will be the venue; it is not just Hampden park. That is the scenario. The venue is, effectively, all of Glasgow.
I recognise that, but I am sure that Mr Adam will also accept that not every part of Glasgow will be as busy as others. That is our concern.
I will pick up on some of the other points. Mr Brown said that it is take it or leave it. That is the problem—it should not be. The point of our scrutiny of the bill is to make sure that we look out for people’s interests. We all accept that the event will be fantastic and that it will bring many opportunities, but we also have to look at those who are impacted, if not losing out.
I appreciate all the points that have been made. As I said, I am happy to work with the minister and have further conversations on the point. We need to look at the issue in more detail and, if the minister is happy to meet me—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
I am happy to have further discussions to reassure Jamie Halcro Johnston. We have a range of concerns about setting a precedent that could apply to major events that Scotland holds in the future, and about how we define loss. I am arguing that there is no loss but, even if we were to accept that there could be some kind of loss, how would we define compensation? There is a range of issues that could set an unfortunate precedent and would lead to lots of complications. I am, however, happy to discuss those issues further with the member.
Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12—Ban on advertising within event zones
Amendment 6, in the name of George Adam, is grouped with amendments 7 and 1.
I will be quite concise. At stage 1, a clear line was drawn—commercial activity can be restricted, but social or political activity should not be, even if commercial brands are involved. I am pleased that the Government agrees with that, and I thank the minister for engaging with me constructively on the matter. My amendments will protect fundamental rights by ensuring that the exemption for demonstrations cannot be stripped away later by regulations. There is also a need to deliver the bill’s core purpose—safeguarding UEFA’s commercial rights—which is what amendment 1 does, so I will support it.
I move amendment 6.
I agree that we must protect our civil rights to protest, as the committee’s stage 1 report says. That is why we ensured that such activity would not be caught by the bill’s advertising offence. Amendments 6 and 7, in the name of George Adam, make that clear. I welcome the amendments, which signal the special value that we place on protecting those rights, and I hope that members will support them.
In relation to my amendment 1, the bill is essential to meeting UEFA’s commercial rights protections requirements to allow Scotland to host UEFA Euro 2028 in Glasgow. One of the requirements is that unauthorised advertising in designated areas must be an offence. The bill seeks to take a proportionate response to restricting outdoor advertising, and one of the ways in which it does that is by allowing existing advertising to remain in place as long as it is not in direct competition with one of the tournament’s sponsors or commercial partners.
Such areas of competition are identified in a list of product categories at paragraph 5(3) of schedule 3 to the bill. At its core, the exemption for existing adverts is a provision that we negotiated with UEFA for Euro 2020, and the provision now needs to be updated so that we can continue to meet UEFA’s hosting requirements. Engagement with UEFA since the bill’s introduction has identified some additional categories that need to be included if the provision is to operate as intended. Amendment 1 will give effect to that by amending the list at paragraph 5(3) of schedule 3.
I ask the committee to support amendment 1 so that the bill can fulfil its primary function—meeting UEFA’s hosting requirements—and, in so doing, enable Euro 2028 matches to be held in Scotland, with all the attendant benefits that will accrue from that.
I welcome the fact that there is clear agreement across the committee and the Government on the need to draw a distinction between commercial activity and social or political expression. I welcome George Adam’s amendments and the Government’s support for them.
I have a very quick comment. The previous amendments that we discussed, and the ones in this group, provide a way of finding the right line to be drawn. We might face the issue again, because the Government might make a bid to host the women’s world cup in Scotland, and I do not know what restrictions we will face from FIFA in relation to Scotland’s participation in the upcoming world cup. On the one hand, we are right to try to avoid precedents that we would find it hard to repeat. On the other hand, we need to find the right balance between people’s rights and the imposition of whatever requirements are set by UEFA or FIFA. I support the amendments in the group.
I invite Mr Adam to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 6.
I have nothing to add. I press amendment 6.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[George Adam]—and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3—Advertising offence: exemptions for certain types of activity
Amendment 1 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 to 21 agreed to.
Section 22—Power to enter and search
09:00
Amendment 8, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 9 and 2.
I will speak to amendments in the group on enforcement powers, which include an amendment in Stephen Kerr’s name and an amendment in my name.
Amendments 8 and 9 seek to bring proportion, clarity and essential safeguards to the bill’s more intrusive and far-reaching powers. At stage 1, the committee heard repeated concerns about the breadth of the enforcement regime and its powers of entry, search, seizure, concealment and even destruction of property. Those concerns did not come from fringe voices; they were raised by legal experts, civil liberties organisations and those with practical enforcement experience. The message was clear: those powers might be justified in principle, but the bill, as drafted, lacked the necessary checks and balances to ensure their fair use in practice.
Amendment 8, lodged by Stephen Kerr, takes a straightforward and entirely reasonable step. It ensures that, when an enforcement officer enters premises, the occupier has the right to “request an explanation”, “observe” what is being done and, where they believe entry to be “unlawful”, to raise that concern with Glasgow City Council. The right to know why enforcement officers have entered your property and the right to witness the actions being taken are not dramatic interventions; they reflect basic principles of natural justice. Without such safeguards, the balance of power is tilted too far in favour of enforcement officials, who are acting on behalf of UEFA’s commercial interests rather than the public interest.
Amendment 9, in my name, addresses one of the bill’s more troubling aspects: the use of reasonable force. As the bill is currently drafted, reasonable force to enter a property without a warrant can be used if
“the constable reasonably believes that there is a real and substantial risk that delay in seeking a warrant would defeat or prejudice the purpose of taking action”,
which is far too broad.
The use of reasonable force without a warrant should happen in only the most severe circumstances. My amendment therefore restricts the ability to enter a property without a warrant to when there is an
“immediate risk to public safety”,
which brings the power back into proportion and ensures that it is used only when it is genuinely necessary.
Amendments 8 and 9 do not impede the ability to enforce the bill effectively or weaken the protection that UEFA requires. They ensure that, when the state grants coercive authority to individuals who act on behalf of a commercial event, that authority is exercised transparently, accountably and proportionately. If ministers are confident that the enforcement regime is already balanced, they should be able to explain clearly why such basic safeguards are not acceptable. If they cannot do so, that is an argument for the amendments themselves. I invite the minister to respond to those points.
I move amendment 8.
Amendment 2 is a technical amendment that defines the term “constable”. Linking it to the relevant existing definition in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 ensures absolute clarity on who can and who cannot use the powers that the bill makes available to constables. I hope that members will be able to support it.
I have listened carefully to Jamie Halcro Johnston, who set out why Stephen Kerr lodged amendment 8. The amendment would give certain rights to the occupier of a place entered or the person who gave permission for it to be entered. The bill already contains a number of safeguards on the use of enforcement powers, which are based on previous experience of major events and were developed with input from Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council. Government officials undertook that engagement to ensure that measures would be workable in practice.
However, Mr Kerr appears to seek further safeguards. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection that amendment 8 would insert into the bill would mean that the occupier of the premises would have to be informed of why the premises are being entered and searched, and it would allow the occupier to be present for the search. Recent engagement with Police Scotland has confirmed that such actions amount to good practice. Although it is not necessarily essential to place such a requirement in the bill, it is possible to do so.
However, we want to get views from Glasgow City Council before making any final decision on that, and I cannot support amendment 8 based on the proposed paragraph (c). There is a question whether it would be more appropriate for the proposed report of unlawful entry that is set out in paragraph (c) to be made to Glasgow City Council or to Police Scotland. It would not be appropriate to agree to the amendment while that question is in doubt. It could create a wrong expectation about what action might be taken if someone thinks that an unlawful entry has taken place. Moreover, Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council have existing mechanisms in place for making a complaint, if that is what is sought by the person who is subject to enforcement action.
I ask Jamie Halcro Johnston not to press amendment 8 on Stephen Kerr’s behalf, to allow more time for consultation with operational partners, especially Glasgow City Council, and to consider whether an amendment that covers the points that are raised in the proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of amendment 8 might be possible at stage 3.
In response to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 9, it might help to explain the rationale behind the power to use reasonable force to enter a premises for the purpose of carrying out enforcement action. Enforcement officers must be able to take swift action to tackle offences under the bill, which allows a police constable, or an enforcement officer when authorised by a police constable, to use reasonable force in situations where the police constable
“reasonably believes that there is a real and substantial risk that delay in seeking a warrant would defeat or prejudice the purpose of taking action”.
If that power can be used only in situations in which there is an immediate risk to public safety, the ability of enforcement officers to take action, such as securing evidence before it can be destroyed or investigating crimes under the bill, would be severely harmed or restricted. That could undermine the entire bill’s core purpose.
It would be unworkable in practice to take enforcement action if amendment 9 were passed, and there is a risk that it would undermine confidence in the event. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 9 and I ask members to resist it.
Do any committee members wish to take part in the debate?
It is perhaps a bit out of character for me to say that an amendment in Stephen Kerr’s name seems reasonable but, on first reading, I did not see anything in amendment 8 that appeared particularly harmful. However, having thought about it a little more, the rights that it sets out could, in some circumstances, be problematic. For example, the right to observe searches might cause unnecessary disputes in situations in which an individual is being disruptive or posing a threat to others around them. The minister referred to the point about reporting entry to Glasgow City Council, and I am a bit worried that that would raise expectations that the council would always have the ability to do something about that. I am not entirely clear how that would be helpful, so I do not feel that amendment 8 should be supported.
For the reasons that the minister set out, I have problems with amendment 9 because of the risk of the opportunity that could be taken to destroy evidence.
Just to respond to Mr Harvie’s comments, I am sure that Stephen Kerr, wherever he is, will be as alarmed as you are by the near consensus. I take your points on board, and I am sure that Mr Kerr would, too. As has been the theme, I am sure that he would be happy to work further with the minister on the matter, because there does seem to be some agreement in that area.
I also recognise your concerns about my amendment 9. However, as such situations often involve commercial interest, the use of force has to be reasonable. I am not sure that that issue is covered in the bill, which is why, following consultation with others, I lodged that amendment. I am happy to include your point in conversations with the minister, if he is happy to have those conversations in relation to both of those amendments.
Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
Section 24—Use of reasonable force
Amendment 9 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 to 29 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Sections 30 to 34 agreed to.
After section 34
Amendment 13, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 10 and 12.
I thank the minister for his early and regular engagement on the bill. My concern arose from the wording in section 22 of the bill—“Power to enter and search”—and the wording around search and seizure of counterfeit goods or, as the bill describes them, “infringing articles”. I raised that concern in a meeting with the minister to discuss the bill.
Although I do not oppose seizing or destroying illegal material, it is important to make clear the definitions in and interpretations of the legislation and the processes to prevent overreach and threats to legitimate traders. The bill makes it clear that ticket touting, trading or advertising in event zones at prohibited times are offences. However, many exceptions are written into the bill.
In addition, I acknowledge that UK law makes it illegal to produce and sell counterfeit goods, but that is not listed as an offence in the bill, which creates an uncertainty around whether it is a championship offence, as defined in the bill. For reference, a “Championship offence” is described in the bill as having the
“meaning given by section 18(1)(a)”,
which is on “General enforcement powers”. It says:
“An enforcement officer may take such reasonable steps as the officer considers necessary ... for the purpose of preventing or ending the commission of an offence under this Act (a ‘Championship offence’)”.
Through amendment 13, I am trying to ensure that there is guidance on what constitutes such an offence and to give clarity to Police Scotland and councils on what they should act on and how they should do so.
I move amendment 13.
I seem to be continually following Mr Whittle, but that is always the case. Even in his advanced years, he would still be way ahead of me.
The committee recommended that the Scottish Government work with Glasgow City Council to monitor and report on the bill’s human rights impacts. Amendment 10 and the consequential amendment 12 would ensure that the Scottish Government reviews and reports on the act’s provisions in a timely manner. They would also ensure that those who enforce the act are involved in that review and, importantly, they set a deadline for completion of that review. I hope that members will support amendments 10 and 12.
Turning first to amendment 13, in Brian Whittle’s name, the meaning of a championship offence is already given in the bill itself. Section 18(1)(a) of the bill sets out that “Championship offence” means an “offence under this Act”. No further guidance should be required. In any case, it is not usual practice for the Scottish ministers to issue guidance about the meaning of new criminal offences. The Scottish Government, along with our partners, will seek to raise awareness of the bill and the offences under it, as is usual practice. Linked to that, there is already a duty for Glasgow City Council to issue guidance about trading and advertising in event zones to help businesses and the public to understand the relevant provisions.
Regarding enforcement action, it will be for Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council, as well as the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, to consider how best to investigate, enforce and prosecute offences in the bill. Providing detailed guidance to those bodies on operational matters is not the Scottish Government’s role, so I ask the committee to resist Brian Whittle’s amendment 13.
Turning to amendments 10 and 12, in George Adam’s name, we are already working closely with our delivery partners on the bill’s provisions and how they will be evaluated. Given the committee’s strong interest in the potential impacts of the bill’s provisions, we are happy to support those amendments. We will continue to work closely with our delivery partners to report in a timely manner, and those amendments will underpin our undertaking to do so.
I have to say that there is ambiguity in the definition of a championship offence as it compares with UK law. It is incredibly important that such an offence is defined, so I will press amendment 13.
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 disagreed to.
09:15Amendment 10 moved—[George Adam]—and agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
Section 36—Regulation-making powers
Amendment 11 not moved.
Section 36 agreed to.
Section 37—Interpretation
Amendment 2 moved—[Richard Lochhead]—and agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
Section 39—Repeal
Amendment 12 moved—[George Adam]—and agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends our consideration of the bill at stage 2. We will pause to let the minister and his officials leave the room. I thank them very much for their attendance.
09:17 Meeting suspended.