Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are lots of questions about those projects—although I see the convener is giving me the eye.

Minister, although I am not a member of the committee, I am grateful to the convener for allowing me the opportunity to ask a question. I was a little perturbed by the answer that you gave to Michelle Thomson about the position of Petroineos in relation to its role as a landowner and a landlord.

I was particularly perturbed by what I picked up as a discussion that you have apparently not yet had with Petroineos, about its willingness to fulfil its part in all this, which is to make that land available in a state that it can be properly developed. Did I pick you up wrong, or are you saying that that is not a discussion that you have yet had?

I completely understand the secondary sales aspect. That is part of the fixture for concerts and games, is it not? I just think that it looks very odd, frankly. We have this whole thing about touting and then in the middle it says that UEFA can effectively bypass all that. I understand the intention but question where it sits in the bill, in connection with touting. That is my take on it.

There are similar issues with the selling of tickets under section 3. I understand the point about charities. However, many good causes would benefit from a charity auction of a ticket that are not registered charities. I am thinking, for example, of local hospitals or schools. Was there any consideration of the charitable dimension in section 3?

Yes, it would be useful to have as much information about that as possible. Might there be similar legislation coming from the UK or Welsh Governments? Will it prevent someone from touting a ticket in Carlisle, just on the other side of the border, for the games in Glasgow?

Flags, yes. Metal badges are also very popular. What is the real and substantial risk? It seems strong-handed; I think that it is strong-handed.

This is my last point, because there are so many issues. It is good that you are here and it is good that you are being so up front with your answers.

Patrick Harvie mentioned issues of enforcement. There is a bit in section 24 of the bill that I could not understand. That might be because I am not a lawyer, but it might be because the whole idea of people forcibly entering premises without a warrant feels really foreign to me. In relation to the merchandise issue that George Adam referred to, section 24(2)(b)(i) says that no warrant is needed 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”.

In the context of policing, if an officer perceives that there is a risk to life, then they may enter any premises. That is understood. Unless I am not understanding the logic, what is the real and substantial risk of someone having a bunch of scarves or hats? I do not quite get that. [Interruption.] What is the other one?

Continuing on the same topic, under section 2(4), why are UEFA officials exempt from the touting offence? I understand about secondary markets and that UEFA might want to set up one of those officially. I get all that, but on touting, why on earth would someone who works with or for UEFA be able to stand outside Hampden and tout a ticket while the guy who lives along the road in Mount Florida cannot do that? I do not understand that.

Okay. There is quite a lot to unpack just in that bit of the bill. Do not get me wrong: I am delighted that we have the tournament coming to the UK, to Scotland, but some things stick in the throat. UEFA is a profit-making organisation that is clearing part of our country out so that it can profit without restrictions. That covers removing all normal Scottish outdoor trading organisations, such as the burger vans and so on, from the area. That sticks in the throat somewhat because the bill does not suggest to me that those businesses will be compensated in any way. The big match days are probably their big revenue days; it is like the black Friday of their business every time there is a big game at Ibrox, Parkhead or Hampden. The bill says that they will be moved to other places, and that might not be anywhere near the crowds that they want to sell their products to, so they will not make the same money. There is nothing in the bill about compensating them. Just to pre-empt your answer, you know that my next obvious point will be to say that the compensation ought not to come from the public purse but from UEFA.

I have a few points that I want to clarify. I agree with Keith Brown: some of this feels very heavy-handed to me. Perhaps it is just about how you see things, but it feels that way. I know that George Adam has maybe taken a different view. For example, in section 7, charities cannot shake a tin outside a venue for a good cause. Why is that felt to be a threat to the commercial might of UEFA?

It can be, though, can it not? Section 3(2)(b) permits

“a body outwith Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland”,

to do what I am suggesting for a local hospital or a playgroup—something that is not a registered charity. That would include the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Channel Islands. It seems to me that we are being particularly harsh towards organisations that are not registered with OSCR, but which are definitely charitable—