Hansard

I am disappointed by the result of the vote on amendment 1, which I felt was a very reasonable amendment. Nevertheless, I will address amendments 2 and 3, which appear in group 2.

Again, the intent is not to weaken enforcement—far from it. Members would be surprised if I was advocating for a weakening of enforcement. With amendments 2 and 3, I am simply trying to make enforcement defensible, proportionate and consistent with well-established principles that this Parliament has applied repeatedly in other regulatory regimes.

At stage 2, the minister emphasised the need for effective enforcement powers to meet UEFA’s requirements and to ensure the integrity of the event. I think that the minister, other members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee and perhaps a few others know what my reservations are about a list of demands from UEFA forming the basis of our bill in order for us to be able to host the event. However, I am a realist, and I understand that that is the nature of the organisation—that is how UEFA operates and how it gets its own way. Basically, we are talking about the creation of an exclusion zone of sorts around the playing venues, which is intended to sanitise those areas by excluding any other commercial activities.

I suppose that I am appealing to the more left-wing members of the Parliament when I say this, although I am not sure that I am capable of appealing to people on the left in any respect. We are, in effect, giving an international business a geographic monopoly in Scotland. I understand that that is the price that we have to pay, but there are some aspects of how that can be achieved in relation to which there is room for some nuance. That is why amendments 2 and 3 matter.

Fulfilling UEFA’s requirement to have the cordon sanitaire of a commercial activity-free zone around Hampden, where UEFA gets to do what it likes, is integral to getting the event. I understand that. However, nothing in amendments 2 and 3 cuts across any of that. The amendments seek to ensure that the exercise of those powers is clear, bounded and capable of withstanding scrutiny. It is in the best traditions of Scots law and this Parliament that those principles are debated here again at stage 3, because they are simple safeguards.

Amendment 2 relates to concerns about entry and search powers. It seeks to provide simple safeguards for occupiers when an enforcement officer enters premises. It would give people the ability to ask why entry is taking place and to observe a search, where appropriate, as well as a clear route for reporting an entry that is believed to be unlawful. In his letter to the committee, which others might have seen, I felt that the minister made a case for amendment 2, although it is entirely feasible that his interpretation of his own words differs from mine. He said:

“In terms of the part of the amendment relating to reporting unlawful entry, while Glasgow City Council have a complaints procedure that could be used, if an individual believes that enforcement officers are acting outwith the law, there is uncertainty about whether the appropriate course of action would be to raise this with Glasgow City Council or with Police Scotland. This could create confusion for the occupier and for the enforcement bodies.”

My amendment 2 is very clear. If there is a sense of injustice, unfairness or inequity in the way in which an enforcement order has been executed—or, more to the point, if there was no enforcement order—proposed new paragraph (c) of section 22(2) says that, when someone considers an entry to be unlawful, they may

“report the entry to Glasgow City Council.”

I felt that what the minister said justified amendment 2.

None of what I am proposing is novel or obstructive. The proposed safeguards already exist in substance in other enforcement contexts, including consumer protection and trading standards. They reflect basic administrative fairness and good practice. Including them in the bill is a very judicious and wise thing to do.

At stage 2, the minister resisted similar arguments on the basis that enforcement officers must be able to act swiftly and decisively. I agree, but swift action and basic transparency are not necessarily to be seen as being in conflict. I know that the minister thinks that they are in conflict, but I do not think that they are. That would not normally be the way that we would see these things.

An explanation of why an officer is exercising a power does not delay enforcement. Allowing observation, where appropriate, does not compromise an investigation. Providing a reporting route does not second-guess the officers on the ground in the operation—it protects them as much as it protects the occupier by ensuring confidence in the legality of the process. In practice, these safeguards would reduce the risk of disputes escalating and of retrospective challenge, and they would increase public confidence in enforcement activity during what will be a highly visible event globally. That is in everyone’s and our country’s interests. Quite rightly, as a country, we jealously guard our international reputation and amendment 2 would provide a pillar of sorts to support the reputation that we all prize.

Amendment 3 is even narrower. It concerns the circumstances in which reasonable force may be used. As drafted, the bill permits force when an officer considers it necessary. My amendment would simply tighten that test to cases that involve an immediate risk to public safety.

That language is familiar and well understood by the enforcement bodies and the courts. It reflects the seriousness of authorising force without removing the power when it is genuinely needed. Again, I am not seeking to subvert the intent of the bill, but simply to underpin it with the safeguards that I think are traditionally those that we would expect within the jurisdiction of Scots law.

I know that the minister argued at stage 2 that the existing wording provided flexibility. The difficulty is that flexibility cuts both ways. A broad, undefined threshold invites inconsistent interpretation and increases legal risk. A clear public safety test would give officers certainty, protect against overreach and reassure the public that force is a last resort, not a matter of convenience.

I conclude by saying that it is always worth remembering the context. The powers will be exercised in busy public spaces where there will be traders, residents and visitors who are not criminals in any ordinary sense of the word. Most will be law-abiding people who are caught up in a temporary regulatory regime, because that is the nature of the bill. In that environment, clarity matters.

Taken together, the amendments would not blunt enforcement, they would sharpen it. They would align the bill with established practice elsewhere in Scots law, reduce the risk of challenge and strengthen the legitimacy of enforcement during the period when the legislation can be applied. I encourage the minister to view them in that light. They are reasonable, proportionate and practical, and accepting them would improve the bill without compromising its purpose or its operation. I urge him to do so.

I move amendment 2.