Meeting of the Parliament 15 January 2026
In developing the bill, we sought to take a proportionate approach to meeting the hosting requirements for Euro 2028. As drafted, the bill contains a number of safeguards on the use of enforcement powers that are based on previous experience of major events and were developed by Government officials with input from Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council.
That engagement sought to ensure that the measures in the bill are workable. As I set out at stage 2, I wanted to consider views from Glasgow City Council before making a final decision on what is now amendment 2, which we are discussing at the moment.
Having received those views, I updated the committee on 13 January and made it clear why we should not support amendment 2. Glasgow City Council kindly provided real-life situations in which the requirements that are set out in paragraphs A and B could be exploited to frustrate enforcement action. For example, engaging an enforcement officer in conversation could be used to create time for evidence to be disposed of elsewhere on the premises. Allowing such distractions in law would effectively negate the impact of any enforcement action. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to place that kind of provision in the bill.
I cannot support amendment 3, which relates to when “reasonable force” can be used to enter a premises. Jamie Halcro Johnston lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I could not support that amendment then and cannot support this one now. As I said at stage 2, enforcement officers must be able to take swift action to tackle offences under the bill, which allows a police constable, or an enforcement officer authorised by a police constable, to use reasonable force in situations where
“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”.
If that power could be used only in situations where there is an immediate risk to public safety, that would severely restrict enforcement officers’ ability to take action—including action to secure evidence before it can be destroyed, to investigate crimes or to act swiftly against ambush marketing—which could, of course, undermine the core purpose of the bill. I therefore believe that amendment 3 would make enforcement action under section 24 of the bill unworkable and that there is a risk that that would undermine public confidence in the safety of the event.
However, I was keen to better understand the positions of Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council on the impact of the amendments, so Government officials undertook further engagement with both key partners. To help provide further reassurance to members regarding the issue of enforcement, I wrote to Glasgow City Council on 8 December seeking further information about how trading standards officers carry out enforcement more generally and about the guidance that they follow in doing so. I will, of course, share that response with Parliament and the committee.
I therefore ask Stephen Kerr not to press amendment 2 and not to move amendment 3. However, should he do so, I encourage members to resist both amendments.