Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

It 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.

As one of the few people who has filled out one of the applications, if I was to fill it out again, I would still be doing it blind, essentially. I would not know the criteria for what I was doing. Advice to go to the RPID office is one thing, but it would not provide the information that we need about why our application was rejected. That is why it is so important that those who apply and are not successful get the information that they need so that any future applications can be made properly the next time around. At the moment, we are having to apply to these schemes blind, and that is why it is important that amendments 336 and 337 are supported.

Will you take an intervention?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business. For full transparency, I point out that I am a partner in a business that made an unsuccessful application to the future farming investment scheme—which is fine—and I am a member of NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

Amendment 337 would place a duty on ministers to report to the Parliament on the operation of environmental farming schemes, including the future farming investment scheme and any similar farming scheme with an environmental focus that the Scottish Government considers to be relevant. The amendment aims to ensure transparency and fairness in the operation of programmes that Douglas Ross and others have spoken about and that play an important part in the Scottish Government’s work on improving the natural environment. More specifically, it would bring to an end the situation that arose earlier this year when ministers failed to provide the answers that the Parliament and the agriculture sector needed on the operation of the future farming investment scheme and how applications were decided.

The scheme followed a consultation with stakeholders that even the cabinet secretary appears to have had concerns about and a rushed launch that we now know was more about ensuring that ministers had something to announce at the Royal Highland Show. It left the sector confused and uncertain about the criteria for applications, which led to 3,500 applications being deemed ineligible from the outset.

Under amendment 337, ministers would have to report on the basis of awards to relevant schemes, the criteria for such awards and the performance of applicants against those criteria. They would have to provide basic figures on applications and some level of data on the characteristics of applicants.

Douglas Ross’s amendment 336 is similar but includes two additional requirements: that relevant stakeholders must be consulted and that, following publication of the report, information must be provided to unsuccessful applicants, including an explanation of why their application was rejected or found to be ineligible. I am sure that many of us who represent agricultural communities will have seen from their inboxes the anger and frustration of farmers and crofters who spent so much time putting in applications only to be told in an email that they had been unsuccessful. They did not know whether they were eligible or why they failed. Given that people in priority groups also failed to make successful applications while others did not, it is vitally important that clarity is provided.

Both amendments would address the fundamental problem with transparency in the future farming investment scheme that was exposed earlier this year. We all want the Parliament to be able to exercise its role in scrutinising the operation of the scheme and the work of the Government, but amendments 336 and 337 would also provide ministers with an opportunity to say to farmers, crofters and other interested parties across the agricultural sector, “We got it wrong, but we’re going to get it right next time,” and to make a fresh start, with a clear and binding commitment to openness and fairness.

Farmers and crofters want and need this information, and I urge members to back my amendment 337, Douglas Ross’s amendment 336 and the amendments in the name of Tim Eagle and Rachael Hamilton.

Some of us here might argue that the cabinet secretary would be better to direct his attention to certain other issues that we have been covering today and in previous weeks.

I probably did not make myself clear. Ahead of this session, were you steered at all by the Government or Government officials on some of the areas that you should be focusing on?

Did you receive further information from them or from other people within Creative Scotland on behalf of the board?

So there was information directly from Creative Scotland and also those two face-to-face meetings, at least.

Okay, thanks. I will maybe come back to that later.

I want to ask about regionality and how Creative Scotland delivers across the country. Do you have any more to say on that? I represent the Highlands and Islands and remote communities that sometimes feel a long way away from everywhere. How do you think Creative Scotland can improve how it delivers for communities like ours?