Official Report 1094KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings for the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill.
In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 60A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division, and the period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendment should press their request-to-speak buttons, or enter “RTS” in the chat function as soon as amendment 1 is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.
After section 5
We move to group 1, which is on intergovernmental co-operation on ticket touting. Amendment 1 is the only amendment in the group.
This is a wonderful Thursday afternoon on what is a momentous day, and a very happy day for many of us on this side of the chamber. We get to talk about football—or, at least, we will eventually get to talk about football, once we have talked about some of the aspects of the bill that I hope the minister might yet reconsider.
I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with Richard Lochhead and for the fully communicative way in which he has piloted the bill. I particularly appreciate the letter that he sent to members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee earlier this week, which I will refer to in my comments.
My amendment in group 1, which is on the subject of intergovernmental co-operation on ticket touting, is a modest procedural amendment that is entirely consistent with what I believe the minister says the bill is trying to achieve. It does not reopen the policy debate on ticket touting, weaken the offence and or delay implementation. It simply asks for clarity about work that the minister has told the committee is already under way.
I recognise that, as the minister says in his letter—which, if the chamber allows, I will quote—
“It is not within the Scottish Government’s gift to report on the actions of other governments”.
I completely agree, and that is not what my amendment seeks to do. The letter goes on to say that the Government cannot
“guarantee meaningful progress within the proposed timeframe”,
but it has to be said that the timeframe is actually quite large; it is not a narrow, but a very broad, timeframe.
There is something else in the minister’s letter that I acknowledge to be true. He says:
“Legislative decisions rest with those administrations”—
meaning the United Kingdom Government, primarily—in the first instance. I understand and accept that.
However, at stage 2, the minister made it clear—and I absolutely accepted this—that the Scottish Government is in regular discussion with the UK Government and that it has had communication with the Welsh Government, which does not intend to create its own Wales-only legislation, and the Government of Ireland on ticket touting, including online and cross-border activity. He also acknowledged that the position across the host nations is uneven, as things stand, with different legislative and enforcement approaches either in place, or being talked about being put in place.
That evidence is exactly why I believe that this amendment matters. The touting provisions in this Scottish Parliament bill apply to Scotland, but the behaviour that we are trying to stop is not restricted to Scotland. Online platforms and cross-border sellers do not respect devolved boundaries. If enforcement is to be effective in practice, Parliament is entitled to understand how those risks are being managed.
The amendment does not require ministers, including the Minister for Business and Employment, to secure an agreement with other Governments. It does not mandate harmonised legislation, and it does not stray beyond devolved competence. It simply asks the minister, or ministers, to set out the steps that they have taken to seek co-operation and what has resulted from that engagement.
15:30At stage 2, the minister expressed concern about committing to a report within a fixed timescale if other Governments had not reached settled positions—he says the same in his letter. My amendment directly reflects his concern: the reporting duty is flexible, broad and, I think, realistic. It calls for a report to be published
“within six months of Royal Assent, and”
in any event
“no later than 18 months before the Championship period.”
That aligns with operational planning; it is not a political deadline, and it is intended to be helpful.
The minister also suggested that a post-event review would be sufficient. With respect, that would be too late—it would be like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Conducting a review after the event would tell us where we went wrong, but the report that I am proposing is, I think, about gaps that Scottish Government ministers might have identified and which the Parliament would need to do something more about, in conjunction with the UK Government and Parliament.
The Parliament is being asked to approve new criminal offences and enforcement powers on the basis that intergovernmental engagement is under way. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, to ask for a factual account of what engagement would take place before the event. If the engagement is as active as the minister indicated at stage 2—and I have no doubt that it is—producing the report would present absolutely no difficulties for the minister. If there are unresolved issues, it is better that the Parliament knows about them from ministers while there is still time to act.
My amendment 1 is not political—it is practical. It would strengthen transparency, improve preparedness and support the bill’s core purpose. I hope that the minister will look at it again, considering the reasonable interactions that we have had, and that he is minded at this stage to accept my helpful amendment.
I move amendment 1.
I thank Stephen Kerr for his constructive and enthusiastic engagement following the amendments that he lodged during and before stage 2. We have met a couple times on this issue. We all share concern about ticket touting and its impact on fans, particularly its propensity to put the price of attending big sporting and other events beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen. We take the issue seriously.
As I set out when Mr Kerr lodged his amendment at stage 2, we are in regular discussion with the Governments of other host nations to ensure that we have a coherent approach to ticket touting. We understand that the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have no plans to introduce primary legislation, while the Republic of Ireland has existing legislation that prohibits the practice. The UK Government has indicated that it is still working through how best to deliver the requirements of the Union of European Football Associations. I reiterate that it is not for Scottish ministers to report on the actions of other hosting Governments, and, as such, we cannot commit to providing a meaningful report to the Parliament within the timeline that Mr Kerr’s amendment sets.
At the risk of being repetitious, my amendment is not asking for Scottish ministers to report on anything other than the actions that they have taken to interact with the United Kingdom Government and the other Governments that my amendment mentions. I am not expecting the minister to do anything other than that. What I am expecting him to do, though, is to ask ministers to report to the Parliament on the basis of what interaction they have had. It would be a status update to help us understand where there might be gaps or shortcomings. That is my intention with amendment 1—it is simply about parliamentary scrutiny.
I do not want to go down the road of being repetitive either. We have been round the houses on this issue a couple times, including at stage 2.
It is my intention to ensure that the Parliament is kept regularly up to date on how discussions are going. However, with regard to the amendment’s proposal to place the requirement in statute, the timing of the decisions made by the other Administrations and the issues around that are not within our gift, and we cannot remedy that. There is a possibility that the UK Government could legislate for its jurisdiction beyond the required timeline for reporting, as proposed by amendment 1.
The bill, as amended at stage 2, now includes a requirement to report on the bill’s operation, as Stephen Kerr said earlier, including on the ticket-touting provisions. I suggest that that addresses the underlying intention of amendment 1, which is to report back to the Parliament on the issues that arise from the bill.
If any significant developments arise before then, the Scottish Government will ensure that the Parliament is kept suitably informed and regularly updated, as I have previously undertaken to do. That is usual practice, but I will make an extra-special effort to ensure that procedures are put in place, given the issues that members have raised.
I hope that that provides Stephen Kerr with sufficient reassurance not to press amendment 1. Should he do so, however, I encourage members to resist it.
I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.
At no stage would I ever doubt the integrity of the minister in respect of his intentions, but the truth is that he will not be in his role when the moment comes that parliamentary updates are required. In fact, none of us really knows where we will be, but I think that it is important—
I will not be here.
Indeed, and I see the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, who is another one who will not be here. However, some of us do hope to be here.
The whole point of amending the bill to include the report is to ensure that there is no slippage in the level of ministerial interest from the level that Richard Lochhead has shown. Therefore, on this occasion, I will press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:36 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 1, in the name of Stephen Kerr. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. There was a problem with my connection. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Stevenson. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar]
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 22—Power to enter and search
Group 2 is on enforcement powers. Amendment 2, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendment 3.
15:45
I am disappointed by the result of the vote on amendment 1, which I felt was a very reasonable amendment. Nevertheless, I will address amendments 2 and 3, which appear in group 2.
Again, the intent is not to weaken enforcement—far from it. Members would be surprised if I was advocating for a weakening of enforcement. With amendments 2 and 3, I am simply trying to make enforcement defensible, proportionate and consistent with well-established principles that this Parliament has applied repeatedly in other regulatory regimes.
At stage 2, the minister emphasised the need for effective enforcement powers to meet UEFA’s requirements and to ensure the integrity of the event. I think that the minister, other members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee and perhaps a few others know what my reservations are about a list of demands from UEFA forming the basis of our bill in order for us to be able to host the event. However, I am a realist, and I understand that that is the nature of the organisation—that is how UEFA operates and how it gets its own way. Basically, we are talking about the creation of an exclusion zone of sorts around the playing venues, which is intended to sanitise those areas by excluding any other commercial activities.
I suppose that I am appealing to the more left-wing members of the Parliament when I say this, although I am not sure that I am capable of appealing to people on the left in any respect. We are, in effect, giving an international business a geographic monopoly in Scotland. I understand that that is the price that we have to pay, but there are some aspects of how that can be achieved in relation to which there is room for some nuance. That is why amendments 2 and 3 matter.
Fulfilling UEFA’s requirement to have the cordon sanitaire of a commercial activity-free zone around Hampden, where UEFA gets to do what it likes, is integral to getting the event. I understand that. However, nothing in amendments 2 and 3 cuts across any of that. The amendments seek to ensure that the exercise of those powers is clear, bounded and capable of withstanding scrutiny. It is in the best traditions of Scots law and this Parliament that those principles are debated here again at stage 3, because they are simple safeguards.
Amendment 2 relates to concerns about entry and search powers. It seeks to provide simple safeguards for occupiers when an enforcement officer enters premises. It would give people the ability to ask why entry is taking place and to observe a search, where appropriate, as well as a clear route for reporting an entry that is believed to be unlawful. In his letter to the committee, which others might have seen, I felt that the minister made a case for amendment 2, although it is entirely feasible that his interpretation of his own words differs from mine. He said:
“In terms of the part of the amendment relating to reporting unlawful entry, while Glasgow City Council have a complaints procedure that could be used, if an individual believes that enforcement officers are acting outwith the law, there is uncertainty about whether the appropriate course of action would be to raise this with Glasgow City Council or with Police Scotland. This could create confusion for the occupier and for the enforcement bodies.”
My amendment 2 is very clear. If there is a sense of injustice, unfairness or inequity in the way in which an enforcement order has been executed—or, more to the point, if there was no enforcement order—proposed new paragraph (c) of section 22(2) says that, when someone considers an entry to be unlawful, they may
“report the entry to Glasgow City Council.”
I felt that what the minister said justified amendment 2.
None of what I am proposing is novel or obstructive. The proposed safeguards already exist in substance in other enforcement contexts, including consumer protection and trading standards. They reflect basic administrative fairness and good practice. Including them in the bill is a very judicious and wise thing to do.
At stage 2, the minister resisted similar arguments on the basis that enforcement officers must be able to act swiftly and decisively. I agree, but swift action and basic transparency are not necessarily to be seen as being in conflict. I know that the minister thinks that they are in conflict, but I do not think that they are. That would not normally be the way that we would see these things.
An explanation of why an officer is exercising a power does not delay enforcement. Allowing observation, where appropriate, does not compromise an investigation. Providing a reporting route does not second-guess the officers on the ground in the operation—it protects them as much as it protects the occupier by ensuring confidence in the legality of the process. In practice, these safeguards would reduce the risk of disputes escalating and of retrospective challenge, and they would increase public confidence in enforcement activity during what will be a highly visible event globally. That is in everyone’s and our country’s interests. Quite rightly, as a country, we jealously guard our international reputation and amendment 2 would provide a pillar of sorts to support the reputation that we all prize.
Amendment 3 is even narrower. It concerns the circumstances in which reasonable force may be used. As drafted, the bill permits force when an officer considers it necessary. My amendment would simply tighten that test to cases that involve an immediate risk to public safety.
That language is familiar and well understood by the enforcement bodies and the courts. It reflects the seriousness of authorising force without removing the power when it is genuinely needed. Again, I am not seeking to subvert the intent of the bill, but simply to underpin it with the safeguards that I think are traditionally those that we would expect within the jurisdiction of Scots law.
I know that the minister argued at stage 2 that the existing wording provided flexibility. The difficulty is that flexibility cuts both ways. A broad, undefined threshold invites inconsistent interpretation and increases legal risk. A clear public safety test would give officers certainty, protect against overreach and reassure the public that force is a last resort, not a matter of convenience.
I conclude by saying that it is always worth remembering the context. The powers will be exercised in busy public spaces where there will be traders, residents and visitors who are not criminals in any ordinary sense of the word. Most will be law-abiding people who are caught up in a temporary regulatory regime, because that is the nature of the bill. In that environment, clarity matters.
Taken together, the amendments would not blunt enforcement, they would sharpen it. They would align the bill with established practice elsewhere in Scots law, reduce the risk of challenge and strengthen the legitimacy of enforcement during the period when the legislation can be applied. I encourage the minister to view them in that light. They are reasonable, proportionate and practical, and accepting them would improve the bill without compromising its purpose or its operation. I urge him to do so.
I move amendment 2.
In developing the bill, we sought to take a proportionate approach to meeting the hosting requirements for Euro 2028. As drafted, the bill contains a number of safeguards on the use of enforcement powers that are based on previous experience of major events and were developed by Government officials with input from Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council.
That engagement sought to ensure that the measures in the bill are workable. As I set out at stage 2, I wanted to consider views from Glasgow City Council before making a final decision on what is now amendment 2, which we are discussing at the moment.
Having received those views, I updated the committee on 13 January and made it clear why we should not support amendment 2. Glasgow City Council kindly provided real-life situations in which the requirements that are set out in paragraphs A and B could be exploited to frustrate enforcement action. For example, engaging an enforcement officer in conversation could be used to create time for evidence to be disposed of elsewhere on the premises. Allowing such distractions in law would effectively negate the impact of any enforcement action. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to place that kind of provision in the bill.
I cannot support amendment 3, which relates to when “reasonable force” can be used to enter a premises. Jamie Halcro Johnston lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I could not support that amendment then and cannot support this one now. As I said at stage 2, enforcement officers must be able to take swift action to tackle offences under the bill, which allows a police constable, or an enforcement officer authorised by a police constable, to use reasonable force in situations where
“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”.
If that power could be used only in situations where there is an immediate risk to public safety, that would severely restrict enforcement officers’ ability to take action—including action to secure evidence before it can be destroyed, to investigate crimes or to act swiftly against ambush marketing—which could, of course, undermine the core purpose of the bill. I therefore believe that amendment 3 would make enforcement action under section 24 of the bill unworkable and that there is a risk that that would undermine public confidence in the safety of the event.
However, I was keen to better understand the positions of Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council on the impact of the amendments, so Government officials undertook further engagement with both key partners. To help provide further reassurance to members regarding the issue of enforcement, I wrote to Glasgow City Council on 8 December seeking further information about how trading standards officers carry out enforcement more generally and about the guidance that they follow in doing so. I will, of course, share that response with Parliament and the committee.
I therefore ask Stephen Kerr not to press amendment 2 and not to move amendment 3. However, should he do so, I encourage members to resist both amendments.
Of course, I accept what the minister has said and the advice that he is acting on. We should be aware, with our eyes wide open, that the bill protects the commercial rights of an international business. When we talk about enforced entry, we are talking about people being liable to get a knock at the door because they are selling merchandise that has not been sanctioned by UEFA or because of what might be described as “unlawful” advertising in the sense of someone having a banner or something like that on premises within the exclusion area around Hampden.
The intention of amendments 2 and 3 has been to support the actions that are necessary in order for UEFA to stage part of the tournament in Scotland while, at the same time, maintaining this country’s long and proud traditions when it comes to forced entry without a warrant. That has been my motivation in persisting with the amendments.
I accept what the minister has said and, on the basis of what I think has been the good will between us on this bill, I will not press either of the amendments.
Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 3 not moved.
That concludes stage 3 consideration of amendments.
As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
I encourage members who are leaving the chamber before the next item of business to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.