Official Report 598KB pdf
We move on to agenda item 2, which is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum and two supplementary LCMs on the Sporting Events Bill. I refer members to paper 3.
I welcome back Stephen Flynn, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport. I also welcome his officials from the Scottish Government: Lucy Carmichael, head of the UEFA Euro 2028 unit; Catriona Mackenzie, major events legislation team leader; and Ninian Christie, who is a lawyer.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief opening remarks.
Thank you, convener. It is good to see you again.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Sporting Events Bill. As the committee will be aware, Scotland has a strong track record of hosting major sporting events successfully. We saw that again this year with the Commonwealth games, which built on our experience of delivering major international events over many years. Such events can bring significant economic and wider benefits, showcase Scotland internationally, and enhance our reputation as a place to visit, live and do business.
We want Scotland to remain an attractive and trusted host for major sporting events. However, today’s discussion is not simply about the benefits that events can bring. It is about whether the bill gives Scotland an appropriate framework when additional commercial protections are needed for a particular sporting event.
Until now, where those protections have been required, this Parliament has legislated on an event-by-event basis, most recently for Euro 2028. The bill offers a different approach. It would create a framework that could be applied to an individual event through regulations, rather than requiring a new act each time.
My officials have worked closely and constructively with the United Kingdom Government as the bill has been developed. That engagement has given us the opportunity to raise issues that matter in a Scottish context and to help shape the framework as it has evolved.
We have considered the bill carefully throughout that process and we have balanced a number of interests. We recognise the value of having a more flexible framework. However, that flexibility has to be considered alongside the potential impact on businesses, local authorities and communities, and the need for enforcement to be proportionate.
I also want to be clear that having the framework does not mean that we would expect to use it for every major sporting event that Scotland hosts, nor should we assume today which future events would, or might, require it. That judgment would need to be made based on the circumstances of each event and on whether using those powers was necessary and proportionate.
The constructive work that we have done with the UK Government, and our consideration of those wider interests, have informed our recommendation that Parliament give legislative consent. Taken as a whole, we believe that it provides a useful framework for Scotland, with important decisions about its future use to be taken on its merits.
I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. I have a quick question. Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the powers can be exercised. Previously, the Scottish Government has introduced event-specific legislation. If an event did not meet the conditions set out in clause 3, but the Scottish Government wanted to legislate, would anything in the bill prevent that from happening?
No.
No. That is grand.
That was an easy question.
Thank you for your initial words, cabinet secretary. You said that the Scottish Government does not have any examples of future events that may be affected by the sporting framework. However, in what circumstances would the Secretary of State and the UK Government exercise the powers of regulation in areas that are devolved?
Mr Kerr, in his capacity as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, wrote to me in that regard as well.
I anticipate that the Secretary of State would take such actions only with the consent of Scottish ministers where we had potential events—these are, of course, potential matters—where that would be applicable for ticketing purposes and so on.
I laid that out in writing in my response to Mr Kerr. I am happy to share that with you, Ms Hamilton, if you have not had the opportunity to see that letter.
I have seen a lot of information about this.
There must be some example that you could use to throw some light on this, or a scenario that you and your officials have played out. It is easier to do that and to think of an event that may be affected. I simply want to know what examples you might be able to give the committee.
A potential women’s world cup, which would be held across all four nations.
Thank you. That is a very useful example.
Secondly, why did the Government initially change its mind with regard to not having sufficient time to introduce a separate bill, and then why did it change its mind again and just lodge a legislative consent motion?
10:15
If I recall correctly, the UK Government brought this bill forward in the king’s speech; we had not had any engagement on it prior to that, and we wanted to ensure that there was time for consultation. Obviously, that has taken place and has, I think, been relatively positive. We have then tried to work at pace to ensure that we align with the timeframes that have been set out, and which are expected to be met for the UK Government to be in a position to pass the legislation.
However, it was all very much based upon the ability to consult. Even though we see this as a positive thing, we did not want to make a unilateral move or unilaterally make a decision without listening to those who might be impacted by it, both positively and negatively.
Lastly, is it the Government’s default position to align with the UK Government and just accept such legislation by recommending agreement through LCMs?
The default position is to ensure that we protect the interests of the Scottish people and adhere to our responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament.
Convener, I want to say, if I may, that I wrote to Mr Kerr on 7 September. I have the letter in front of me, and I am quite happy to ensure that a copy is shared with the committee, if that would be helpful.
I am sure that it would be, but I think that we have had a good discussion and a good read of all the background documents.
Are members content to recommend to Parliament that the Government’s legislative consent motion, as drafted, be agreed to?
Members indicated agreement.
Great. Is the committee also happy to delegate authority to me as convener to agree the report?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the cabinet secretary, once again, and his officials for their time today, and I suspend the meeting for a short comfort break and to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:17
Meeting suspended.
10:24
On resuming—