Official Report 572KB pdf
I warmly welcome everyone back to the meeting. Our next agenda item is to take evidence on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. We are joined in the room by Richard Lochhead, Minister for Business and Employment, and by Lucy Carmichael, head of events strategy and delivery, and Ninian Christie, lawyer, both of whom are from the Scottish Government.
I invite Mr Lochhead to make a few short opening remarks.
Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee.
I, too, appreciate this opportunity to speak to you all about the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. It is a vital step in enabling Scotland to play its part in hosting Euro 2028, which is, as you will all know, one of the most prestigious sporting events in the whole world; it ensures that we meet the requirements of the Union of European Football Associations, particularly around commercial rights and enforcement; and it allows us to deliver a world-class tournament in Glasgow.
Hosting Euro 2028 also presents a unique opportunity to build on Scotland’s strong track record of delivering major events. From the Commonwealth games to the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—we have always shown that Scotland can host with distinction, combining professionalism with a very warm welcome. The tournament will allow us to further enhance our reputation as a trusted international partner and as a destination that delivers not only for fans and athletes but for communities and businesses, too.
Euro 2028 is more than a football tournament; it is a platform for showcasing our country on the international stage as somewhere dynamic, welcoming and ambitious. The projected economic impact across the United Kingdom and Ireland is significant—up to £2.6 billion—and Glasgow stands to benefit from increased tourism, investment and global visibility.
However, the benefits go beyond numbers. The Euro 2028 legacy vision is aimed at growing a more diverse and inclusive game, and a key priority for the Scottish Government is to widen those benefits and spread the impact throughout Scotland, furthering a number of national outcomes.
The bill also seeks to create opportunities for communities, businesses and fans and ensures that Scotland’s role in this historic event is protected from exploitation, whether it be ticket touting, unauthorised trading or ambush marketing. Indeed, it introduces targeted measures to safeguard the tournament’s integrity and the rights of those who have invested in it.
We have worked closely with partners across these islands and Ireland and with key stakeholders here in Scotland to ensure that our approach is proportionate, effective and informed by experience, including lessons from hosting Euro 2020. I look forward to working with the committee as the bill progresses, and we will, of course, do our best to answer your questions.
Thank you very much, minister.
I want to open with a question about the potential risks associated with the expansion of enforcement powers to council officers. What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that those who enforce the offences created in the bill will exercise their duties in a manner that is compatible with human rights?
I hope that the committee has noticed from the policy memorandum that various human rights impact assessments have been carried out. Clearly, the powers are time limited to the duration of the event both in the event zone around Hampden park and a fan zone that has still to be identified and decided on by Glasgow City Council. Whether it be George Square, Glasgow Green or wherever, that decision has still to be taken. Again, these are time-limited powers, for the weeks around the event.
We have done our best to strike a balance. The powers are relatively similar to those in the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020, but there are requirements that we have to meet as a host nation for Euro 2028, and that is the purpose of the bill.
I can expand on that in answering any further questions that you have in that respect.
I had expected that answer, minister. We saw no such concerns raised at the last tournament, so I thought that that would be the objective in making sure that these provisions were part of this bill.
I move to questions from members, and I call Patrick Harvie.
Good morning, minister and colleagues. I want to ask first about the general overall approach, and then I have a couple of specific questions about the human rights arguments that have been raised.
Ambush marketing has been raised as something that the bill is intended to create barriers to. Is it the Government’s general intention that the bill should capture actions that are commercial in nature, but that it should not capture, prevent or inhibit actions such as protests? Are you saying that it is legitimate to have activities that are intended to criticise the track record, ethically or environmentally, of a company, including a sponsor company, but it is not legitimate to simply opportunistically try to make money through ambush marketing?
That is a fair reflection of the Government’s approach to this. As part of our conditions as a host nation, we have to ensure that sponsors and those who have invested in Euro 2028—UEFA will be in charge of all of that—are protected, and that others do not have any ambush marketing in the zones. We are talking about people wanting to exploit commercial opportunities, which has to be safeguarded against.
So, sponsors will be protected from commercial marketing, but not from political protests.
Yes. I was about to say that there are exemptions for the likes of protests. Clearly, those are protected and subject to normal legislation—they are not covered by the bill. There is a particular exemption in the bill with regard to protests.
Some changes were made to the previous legislation during its passage in 2019 to ensure that enforcement officers would not have the same powers as police officers in relation to things such as stop and search and physical intervention. My reading of the bill seems to suggest that those changes have been incorporated and that the intention is to do what was done as a result of the amendments to the earlier legislation. Is that correct?
There are powers for enforcement officers deployed by Glasgow City Council and, indeed, the police to enforce the various restrictions in the zones for the duration of Euro 2028. Those powers largely reflect other bits of Government legislation, for instance, with regard to entering premises.
Our general approach is that, if you have to enter premises to stop an infringement, you will need a warrant. However, there are circumstances in which, if the delay in securing that warrant defeats the whole purpose of stopping the infringement in the first place, you will be able to enter without one. However, that does not apply to homes and dwelling places—it applies simply to premises.
But, in basic terms, is it correct that enforcement officers will not have the same powers as police officers in the absence of the latter?
My understanding is that enforcement officers will have similar powers—although I am not too sure to which specific powers you are referring. I will bring in Lucy Carmichael.
I think that we touched on that issue at the previous evidence session, Mr Harvie. I wonder whether what you are referring to is the
“power to enter and search”
in section 22 of the bill. Section 22(2) provides that
“Subsection (1) does not authorise an enforcement officer to—
(a) search an individual, or
(b) access data stored electronically.”
If that is helpful—if that is one of the areas that you were thinking about—that is a proportionate safeguard in the bill.
Thank you.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has suggested that there should be
“a requirement for Glasgow City Council to monitor and report on ... human rights impacts”.
Is the SHRC right that that requirement is not currently in the bill? Is the Government open to considering it?
Again, we have carried out all the assessments—sorry, just to clarify, are you talking about post-event?
Yes—I mean the requirement to monitor the events as they happen and to report.
I do not know whether Lucy wants to come in on that aspect.
I am happy to. Obviously, we are grateful to the Scottish Human Rights Commission for its helpful written evidence. I think that the minister was alluding to the fact that we considered human rights impacts when developing the bill.
On the specific point about Glasgow City Council’s reporting, we would want to engage with it and see what might be possible. You are correct that that requirement is not explicitly set out in the bill at present.
Can you assure us that that engagement will take place and that you will have a position before we get to stage 2?
I am happy to say that we will speak to Glasgow City Council about that specific point from the evidence.
Thank you.
I will continue the line of questioning that Patrick Harvie has taken. The enforcement officers can enter and search vehicles, premises or stalls, but they cannot search individuals—that is what you think the balancing issue is. They can seize, conceal or destroy property deemed in breach of trading or advertising restrictions and, in certain circumstances, they can do all that with no warrant. That is what the bill says.
Let us go back to what the Scottish Human Rights Commission has said. It made the very good point that
“the bill does not set out limitations on how enforcement officers should ... determine ... suspicion”.
What is your interpretation of that? On what basis would an enforcement officer enter and search vehicles, premises and so on without a warrant?
As I indicated previously, our take on that is that there could be circumstances in which waiting for a warrant defeats the purpose of having to stop the infringement. Therefore, under those specific scenarios, enforcement officers would be able to enter premises.
Right.
I might have misunderstood your question, Mr Kerr. You were talking about enforcement officers’ powers to enter and search without a warrant—
Correct.
A police officer must be present if force is being used to enter a premises.
But they still would not have a warrant.
Yes. However, in those circumstances, a police officer would be present with the enforcement officer.
But even a police officer must have a warrant. A police officer cannot just force—
The bill provides for certain circumstances where a police officer can enter without a warrant to end the commission of an offence. We wrote to the committee to provide examples of similar measures following the evidence session—
Yes, I got that letter—
So, Police Scotland has powers to do that more generally.
I am in the same place as the Scottish Human Rights Commission in that I am not sure that I really understand on what basis and how you would gauge the level of suspicion required in order to use those powers. What would the circumstances and the measurement be?
I think that Police Scotland is used to exercising those operational judgments under other pieces of legislation.
The normal circumstances in which a police officer would enter a premises without a warrant are if they thought that there was a threat to life.
Ninian Christie might wish to come in on that point, but I think that we provided some examples in which police officers currently have powers to enter a premises without a warrant when there is no threat to life. I should say that a safeguard exists whereby a police officer could not enter a dwelling without a warrant.
10:30
Right, okay. I have a general question. The letter from Rachael McKechnie, which you referred to, makes the point that the
“Welsh Government has no plans to introduce its own primary legislation but will ... work ... with the UK Government ... to ensure that UEFA’s requirements are met.”
The next paragraph says that
“The Northern Ireland Executive has indicated it is not currently considering bringing forward specific legislation”.
Why are we doing it, then? Why do we not just work with the UK Government? With the forbearance of the convener, I will apply that to the issue of touting, which I will move on to shortly. That is best dealt with at a UK level, is it not? Why have we introduced a bill when Northern Ireland and Wales have decided not to?
First, Northern Ireland is not a host nation now—
No, but I am just quoting from the letter.
Yes, but Northern Ireland has taken a decision in the context that it is not hosting any matches. We are hosting matches, and the issues are clearly devolved.
The constitutional arrangements for Wales are slightly different, so how the Welsh Government wants to engage with the UK Government is up to it. Whether it works with the UK Government on aspects that are different to the ones that we are working on in Scotland is a choice for it to make. We did our own bills for Euro 2020—which was held in 2021—and for the Commonwealth games in 2014 without any controversy; we are simply following that pattern.
The anti-touting measures in the Scottish Government bill are quite limited, are they not? For example, someone could just cross the border and do a bit of touting, because the bill does not extend to the rest of the United Kingdom, obviously.
Yes, but that applies to many laws in the country. In this context, the UK Government will presumably introduce its own legislation in response to UEFA’s demands so that it can host the games in England.
Do you understand the point that I am making? When it comes to touting, the territorial aspect is irrelevant, because much of it will be done online—
Yes.
Therefore, would it not have been better to have taken a United Kingdom-wide view on touting so that a single standard law would have been applied to all parts of the United Kingdom?
You could make the argument that that could apply to many laws. We have our own demands from UEFA to put in place legislation to ensure that we can be one of the host nations.
Do you confirm, however, that we could have had a United Kingdom measure? We could have co-operated and come up with a single measure.
We are co-operating, and there will be discussions with the UK Government. However, you are taking us into the realm of whether we would want the UK Government to legislate on all devolved issues, and that—
No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that, when it comes to ticket touting, our having a single law that applies to all the territory of the United Kingdom would probably be much more efficient than our doing the legislation separately. I think that you would admit—and have admitted—that the touting provisions are quite limited.
I will move on—
Touting is multifaceted. Clearly, we need to co-operate with other countries and the rest of the UK in relation to some aspects. However, other aspects relate to what happens outside Hampden park for example, and it is obviously appropriate that we legislate for that, as required by UEFA.
I still do not understand why UEFA officials and employees are exempt from the ticket touting laws.
That provision was put in because UEFA sells tickets and must make a profit on the tickets that it sells.
Is that touting?
No, it is not touting—that is the point. That is why they are exempt.
Why are they specifically exempt from the touting provisions of the bill? That is simply them reselling their tickets, which is their property; a ticket to a match is their licence, as it were. That is how they trade. Why does the bill specifically say that officials and employees of UEFA—a huge multinational enterprise—are exempt from the ticket touting laws?
Because we are speaking about UEFA tickets. Therefore, the lawyers and the bill team looked at who needed to be exempted to ensure that we covered all bases. That is why the provision is included.
Touting is not the same as selling. I do not understand—
Touting is selling a ticket for a profit. There is one organisation that will definitely be selling tickets for a profit for this event, and that is UEFA. Therefore, for clarity and for legal purposes, it is important to make sure that UEFA is exempt.
There are many questions in a similar vein, but other members will probably want to come in.
I will bring in Mr Stewart.
We have touched on certain obligations that are placed on a host nation, such as those that relate to the management of street trading; ambush advertising; ticket touting, which Mr Kerr has just spoken about; and the sale of counterfeit goods.
Minister, you have indicated that those aspects will be managed or authorised by either the police or Glasgow City Council. They will have to take reasonable measures to prohibit, restrict and prevent some of those things from taking place. Indeed, the crux of the matter is ensuring that certain things do not take place, whether that is across the piece or in the zoned areas. How will you ensure that we have in place robust processes during the Euros and in the protected zones to deal with those aspects?
One of the advantages of passing the legislation at this stage—I do not know the exact timescale for its passage through the Parliament—when the event is not until 2028 is that it will give Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life, which will be doing a lot of the work for the event, plenty of warning and an opportunity to prepare. I hope that that long run-in will help. The Scottish Government will also be closely co-ordinating with Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life, so there will be a lot of joint working between now and the event in 2028.
Glasgow City Council and its trading standards officers have a big role to play in the licensing and enforcement of street trading. If any issues arise, we will have the opportunity to hear about those from the council.
Okay. Thank you.
I go back to the questions that Stephen Kerr raised on ticket touting. Our original concern was about internet ticket sales and whether people from Scotland would be—rightly—prohibited from touting or exploiting ticket sales elsewhere in the UK. In my view, that concern should be dealt with reciprocally, with the UK Government taking measures to ensure that people elsewhere cannot exploit the Scottish market. We are still waiting on the response from the police as to how that is to be done.
I should say that I have no problem at all with Scotland legislating for itself; we have our own legal system and our own police force, which is not the case in Wales and Northern Ireland.
However, the issue concerns me. I do not mind what the solution is as long as we ensure that the measures are applied equally. For example, we would not want to be in position in which the UK Government could say that you cannot access the ticket market outwith England and Wales but that those in England and Wales can get into the Scottish market, if you follow what I mean. What is your understanding of the police’s position on that?
There will be a lot of joint working on common issues among the partners in Scotland, across the UK and Ireland—Ireland is a co-host as well; it is not just the UK—and there is an organisation that brings all the partners together. There is a lot of work to be done between now and the event itself.
Technology is constantly advancing, and UEFA is very conscious of that. There are two key areas in which that must be addressed. The first is the issue of legality and enforcement at the local level and within jurisdictions. The second is the terms and conditions that UEFA has for its own tickets. In one of its submissions to the committee, it referred to the “distress” that is caused when people turn up with tickets and cannot get into tournaments because they have purchased them in the wrong place or whatever and they are not valid. UEFA has its own ways of enforcing its terms and conditions for its tickets at stadiums. I hope that we can get right those two prongs so that ordinary fans have access to tickets.
It would have been really useful if we had had the police’s response by now.
There is another issue that the committee has been concerned about previously, which was raised in part by Alexander Stewart earlier. I know that the minister, like me, is very keen on Scotland’s involvement in European football competitions at all levels. I have read through the papers and I am aware of the background noise about UEFA and FIFA. It seems to me that those organisations have lost a great of credibility when it comes to how they decide where those competitions take place. I know that it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, but when I look at the strictures around commercial activities, it also seems that we are obliged to get our legal system, our police and others in position to protect the commercial interests of UEFA.
Our previous discussion was about why street traders, who—as you will know from recent experience—would normally be on the streets surrounding Hampden park, should not be there. I suppose that you have to ask yourself whether you would be upset if that happened, say, in Italy, and people were undermining the profits that UEFA was making, which are then distributed to everyone else. I can understand the point, but I would not be upset about that happening.
You can call the work counterfeit or you can just call it commercial activity. I am sure that you will not go down this direction, minister, but is it not getting to the point at which UEFA and FIFA can dictate a great deal more than they should be able to in deciding who will be selected to host those competitions? Surely, they should not be able to dictate all those things in relation to commercial activity. I understand the case for them doing so with tickets, but not for the rest of it.
That is a huge question. The tournaments—I think that the Euros are the third biggest sporting spectacle in the world—are a hugely commercial exercise. I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However, that is why there are a lot of issues around ticket touting, and the measures are to ensure that there is fair access to tickets for ordinary fans. I think that 97 per cent of the revenue that UEFA gets from those tournaments goes back into football at all levels. That helps the sport globally, including here in Scotland.
I do not have a ready answer as to what the alternative is to what you might be getting at, but these are clearly issues for public debate, and I pay close attention to them.
I suppose that the alternative would be for UEFA and FIFA to relax a bit and allow local traders to do what they always do. I have no quibbles with the approach to tickets; I understand that point. You made a point about the scenes that can develop if people are turning up and their tickets cannot be used. We saw that and the public disorder that can arise from it outside the Parc de Princes on a recent occasion. However, my question was more to do with whether it would hurt UEFA if Joe Bloggs from Partick went along to Hampden with his stall selling some scarves. I just think that the approach is getting a bit too heavy-handed.
Those are certainly issues to raise with the Scottish Football Association—it probably has more influence than us on some of those issues.
I do not think that it has that influence. That is the point that I am making, minister. We have to take it or leave it. I understand that having the competitions here is a very attractive proposition, but it seems—to me, anyway—that there is an undue use of their influence.
Thank you, Mr Brown. Mr Stewart, do you want to add anything?
No, thank you.
As nobody else wants to come in, that concludes our questions for you this morning, minister. Thank you for your attendance.
Previous
Gaza