Chamber and committees

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.

No, it is not touting—that is the point. That is why they are exempt.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Scottish ministers will have to look at each case on its merits and decide whether they want to give consent. As a Government, we would look at an issue in detail, as we do with any issue that comes from the UK Government that affects Scotland. We would then write to the Parliament under the protocol, because the provisions in the bill relate largely to retained EU law that is being taken forward through the bill, and that is the agreed protocol for this kind of legislation. We would write to the Parliament, explain the Scottish Government’s view as to whether or not we recommended giving consent and the Parliament would have the opportunity to respond to that. It would be the usual process for scrutiny.

First, the motivation for the bill, as explained to Scottish Government stakeholders, is to modernise the regulation of products as the world is changing fast around us, different types of products are coming on to the market and there are different issues to take into account. That is absolutely fine and understood. We have no objection to that.

When a UK bill comes forward, however, and it applies to areas that are devolved, it is our job, clearly, to stand up for Scottish devolution and the right of this Parliament to decide on those devolved issues. We had concerns because the bill gave UK ministers the ability to regulate devolved issues without the consent of the Scottish ministers. For instance, fish, fish products and seeds were not on the list of excluded products in the schedule to the bill. There is a schedule to the bill that lists excluded products to which the bill would not apply, and some of those topics are devolved but not all the devolved topics were on that list. That left the UK Government able to regulate products for which the responsibility is in this Parliament.

We have a Scottish Parliament and we have Scottish devolution. Following your logic, what is the point of having Scottish devolution and a Scottish Parliament if we want everything across the UK to be the same? Clearly, we have different circumstances at times. I am speaking in very broad terms here, but two thirds of the UK fishing and seafood industry is based in Scotland and responsibility for that lies with this Parliament. If, for instance, we had not got consent—which we now have in the bill; that is what the debate has been about—for the Scottish ministers to be consulted before UK legislation was used to regulate fish and fish products, I suspect that there would be an outcry in Scotland saying that the UK was regulating on a devolved issue that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. You either believe the principles or you do not.