Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 2 is a technical amendment that defines the term “constable”. Linking it to the relevant existing definition in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 ensures absolute clarity on who can and who cannot use the powers that the bill makes available to constables. I hope that members will be able to support it.

I have listened carefully to Jamie Halcro Johnston, who set out why Stephen Kerr lodged amendment 8. The amendment would give certain rights to the occupier of a place entered or the person who gave permission for it to be entered. The bill already contains a number of safeguards on the use of enforcement powers, which are based on previous experience of major events and were developed with input from Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council. Government officials undertook that engagement to ensure that measures would be workable in practice.

However, Mr Kerr appears to seek further safeguards. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection that amendment 8 would insert into the bill would mean that the occupier of the premises would have to be informed of why the premises are being entered and searched, and it would allow the occupier to be present for the search. Recent engagement with Police Scotland has confirmed that such actions amount to good practice. Although it is not necessarily essential to place such a requirement in the bill, it is possible to do so.

However, we want to get views from Glasgow City Council before making any final decision on that, and I cannot support amendment 8 based on the proposed paragraph (c). There is a question whether it would be more appropriate for the proposed report of unlawful entry that is set out in paragraph (c) to be made to Glasgow City Council or to Police Scotland. It would not be appropriate to agree to the amendment while that question is in doubt. It could create a wrong expectation about what action might be taken if someone thinks that an unlawful entry has taken place. Moreover, Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council have existing mechanisms in place for making a complaint, if that is what is sought by the person who is subject to enforcement action.

I ask Jamie Halcro Johnston not to press amendment 8 on Stephen Kerr’s behalf, to allow more time for consultation with operational partners, especially Glasgow City Council, and to consider whether an amendment that covers the points that are raised in the proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of amendment 8 might be possible at stage 3.

In response to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 9, it might help to explain the rationale behind the power to use reasonable force to enter a premises for the purpose of carrying out enforcement action. Enforcement officers must be able to take swift action to tackle offences under the bill, which allows a police constable, or an enforcement officer when authorised by a police constable, to use reasonable force in situations where the police 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 can be used only in situations in which there is an immediate risk to public safety, the ability of enforcement officers to take action, such as securing evidence before it can be destroyed or investigating crimes under the bill, would be severely harmed or restricted. That could undermine the entire bill’s core purpose.

It would be unworkable in practice to take enforcement action if amendment 9 were passed, and there is a risk that it would undermine confidence in the event. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 9 and I ask members to resist it.

In lodging amendment 3, Stephen Kerr seeks to widen the exceptions for ticket touting in a way that would risk increasing scope for exploitation by touts. The purpose of the touting offence in the bill is to prevent those who are looking to resell Euro 2028 tickets for their own gain from doing so. We must therefore seek to keep resale exemptions as tightly drawn as possible, to avoid creating easy loopholes that some may try to exploit.

The current provision in the bill ties the charity auction exemption to charity registers where they exist. That provides strong assurance that those who claim the exemption are indeed charitable in nature and that any funds raised will be used entirely for charitable purposes. It also provides a clear way—through the published register—for enforcement bodies to identify whether an organisation that is seeking to utilise the exemption is eligible to do so.

Assurances would not be as strong if the exemption was widened to include the bodies that are set out in amendment 3. For example, there is no central register for community-controlled bodies, which would make verification more challenging. Further, the legislation that defines community-controlled bodies—the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015—does not set out to regulate those bodies and their use of funds. It might therefore be difficult to establish that moneys that are raised from an auction are used solely for charitable purposes.

Many Scottish schools and community groups are already charities, or are associated with registered charities, and would therefore be able to benefit from the exemption as it stands. Of course, it is open to those that are not currently registered to consider whether they can do so—after all, they have until 2028 to do so. For example, we know that there are already more than 400 Scottish charities that are associated with publicly funded schools. Those include parent-teacher associations, parent councils, after-school clubs, extracurricular groups and uniform banks.

It would be untrue to say that local groups cannot register as charities. More than half of the charities that are registered in Scotland work in their local areas, and more than two fifths of them operate locally in a specific place, community or neighbourhood.

I am happy to have further discussions to reassure Jamie Halcro Johnston. We have a range of concerns about setting a precedent that could apply to major events that Scotland holds in the future, and about how we define loss. I am arguing that there is no loss but, even if we were to accept that there could be some kind of loss, how would we define compensation? There is a range of issues that could set an unfortunate precedent and would lead to lots of complications. I am, however, happy to discuss those issues further with the member.

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12—Ban on advertising within event zones

It is important that small businesses, including street traders, can benefit from the opportunity of Scotland hosting Euro 2028. We want to make things as easy as possible for those affected by event zones, which is why the bill ensures that there will be guidance on the measures that will be put in place and that street traders who cannot trade where they normally would will be offered alternative arrangements. For example, the licensing authority may waive the application fee for a temporary licence at an alternative location for those whose current licence would normally allow them to trade in the event zones, but who, because of this legislation, will not be able to do so. The measures are consistent with the legislation that the Scottish Parliament passed for Scotland to meet the conditions of hosting Euro 2020 matches.

I understand that Glasgow City Council has provided the committee with reassurance on some of those points. It has indicated that the council’s street trader web page makes potential applicants and licence holders aware of possible restrictions on trade that might come into force for the tournament.

However, compensation can only be paid when there is an actual loss. As this is a one-off tournament, the Euro 2028 matches at Hampden park will provide street traders with an opportunity that is over and above what they could expect in any other year. Street traders are also not prohibited from trading outright during the rest of the tournament. As I have stated, we are putting measures in place to support street traders to trade outwith the event zones.

We will continue to work with Glasgow Life, Glasgow City Council and other partners to involve local businesses and communities in the delivery of Euro 2028, but we agree with UEFA and UK & Ireland 2028 Ltd on the point that there is no loss to be compensated. There is therefore no basis upon which to make the kind of representations to UEFA that amendment 5 would require.

I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for setting out his rationale for amendments 5 and 11, but I hope that he might now agree that they are not needed and that he will not press amendment 5 or move amendment 11. Should he not agree, I encourage members to resist the amendments.

Will the member take an intervention?

I agree that we must protect our civil rights to protest, as the committee’s stage 1 report says. That is why we ensured that such activity would not be caught by the bill’s advertising offence. Amendments 6 and 7, in the name of George Adam, make that clear. I welcome the amendments, which signal the special value that we place on protecting those rights, and I hope that members will support them.

In relation to my amendment 1, the bill is essential to meeting UEFA’s commercial rights protections requirements to allow Scotland to host UEFA Euro 2028 in Glasgow. One of the requirements is that unauthorised advertising in designated areas must be an offence. The bill seeks to take a proportionate response to restricting outdoor advertising, and one of the ways in which it does that is by allowing existing advertising to remain in place as long as it is not in direct competition with one of the tournament’s sponsors or commercial partners.

Such areas of competition are identified in a list of product categories at paragraph 5(3) of schedule 3 to the bill. At its core, the exemption for existing adverts is a provision that we negotiated with UEFA for Euro 2020, and the provision now needs to be updated so that we can continue to meet UEFA’s hosting requirements. Engagement with UEFA since the bill’s introduction has identified some additional categories that need to be included if the provision is to operate as intended. Amendment 1 will give effect to that by amending the list at paragraph 5(3) of schedule 3.

I ask the committee to support amendment 1 so that the bill can fulfil its primary function—meeting UEFA’s hosting requirements—and, in so doing, enable Euro 2028 matches to be held in Scotland, with all the attendant benefits that will accrue from that.

I am happy to consider further how we advertise the charity exemption to alert organisations to the fact that they can take advantage of that. We can certainly give some thought to that but, as I have outlined, the legislation has to be tightly controlled.

It would also be untrue to say that small groups cannot register. More than one quarter of Scottish charities have an income of less than £5,000, and two thirds have no paid staff and are run by volunteers.

Amendment 3 would increase the risk that the exemption could be exploited by those who claimed to be raising funds for charitable purposes but who were, in fact, seeking a profit. The Scottish Parliament has previously legislated on charity regulation, in part to give us exactly the assurance that we need in this case—that we can have confidence in how funds are raised and used.

Furthermore, section 3 includes conditions that, if satisfied, will enable charities that are based outwith Scotland to benefit from the exemption, thereby ensuring that there is no discrimination between Scottish charities and other charities. Amendment 3 does not include a mechanism to determine whether bodies that are equivalent to community councils, for example, should benefit from the exemption.

On amendment 4, we have a track record of producing bespoke legislation for major events in Scotland. We have done so again, with this bill, to meet UEFA’s requirements, in accordance with UEFA’s timetable and within the constraints on parliamentary time, given the 2026 election. We are in regular discussion with the Governments of other host nations to ensure a coherent approach. We understand that the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have no plans to introduce primary legislation, the Republic of Ireland has existing legislation that prohibits ticket touting, and the UK Government has indicated that it is still working through how best to deliver UEFA’s requirements.

I know that committee members will be interested in the UK Government’s announcement last month that it intends to explore possible legislative solutions to prevent live event ticket touting more generally. We will continue to engage with the UK Government as its proposals to address that issue and those relating to dynamic pricing take shape.

However, it is not for the Scottish ministers to make announcements for other hosting Governments. As such, we cannot commit to providing a meaningful report to the Parliament within the timeline that is set out in amendment 4, nor would it be in our gift to remedy that. There is a possibility that the UK Government will legislate for its jurisdiction beyond the proposed timeline for reporting.

Instead, I propose that amendments 10 and 12, which are on “Review of Act” and which will be debated later, provide assurance that the Scottish Government will report to the Parliament on engagement with the other host nation Governments as part of reporting on the impact of the legislation.

Therefore, I encourage members to resist amendments 3 and 4.

At the moment, the mandate letters from the Scottish Government to public bodies refer to the national planning framework—I am sorry; I mean the national performance framework. The letters also refer to the Scottish public finance manual, which—I have it in front of me—outlines the responsibility of accountable officers with regard to those issues. That work is done across Government, and that is how we manage it at the moment. As I said before, the review will look at any further reforms that are required to enhance that process and make it stronger.

The national planning framework also has the acronym “NPF”—that is what keeps confusing me. The national performance framework is reflected in the national planning framework, both of which are NPFs.

Yes, we are looking at that. We are also looking at how the Welsh are improving accountability and learning from their experience. That is being built into our on-going work, and the advisory group will no doubt look at that as well. I assure the committee that we are very interested in learning from the Welsh experience.