���˿���

Yes.

My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that some work is being done at the United Kingdom level to look at other issues arising out of digital assets and the digital world. I do not think that I will be in a position to answer that question until we see what those reviews are looking at and what they come up with.

However, just as a chain of events led to the need for the bill in Scotland, there might well be a requirement for more bills in the future. The legal profession is looking at a number of issues, particularly in England and Wales, and, as some of the witnesses said, we will take that into account in Scotland.

It is likely that more legislation will be required in the future as the situation develops globally and the implications of it and the impact that it will have on Scotland and Scots law become clearer. At the moment, however, it is difficult to say exactly what will be required.

Off the top of my head, I do not think that it necessarily has to be in the bill, but members often lodge amendments along those lines, so I am not saying that it is incompatible with the bill. Let me reflect on that, and the committee might want to reflect on how important that is. We have a lot of expertise in Scotland, so it is not as though we are short of people to give us advice or to put on an advisory committee or panel that was set up.

The question that I got was in relation to this legislation being introduced as opposed to what is happening in the wider cryptocurrency economy. All that I can say is that I feel that we are producing this legislation in good time. The UK bill passed in the past few weeks, or in the past month or two, so I am quite content with where we are as a country.

That is the key point. Anyone listening will know that, in Scotland, we are modernising our property law to ensure that digital assets that people pay for are recognised as property, just as non-digital assets are. That is the key point to take away.

Turning first to amendment 13, in Brian Whittle’s name, the meaning of a championship offence is already given in the bill itself. Section 18(1)(a) of the bill sets out that “Championship offence” means an “offence under this Act”. No further guidance should be required. In any case, it is not usual practice for the Scottish ministers to issue guidance about the meaning of new criminal offences. The Scottish Government, along with our partners, will seek to raise awareness of the bill and the offences under it, as is usual practice. Linked to that, there is already a duty for Glasgow City Council to issue guidance about trading and advertising in event zones to help businesses and the public to understand the relevant provisions.

Regarding enforcement action, it will be for Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council, as well as the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, to consider how best to investigate, enforce and prosecute offences in the bill. Providing detailed guidance to those bodies on operational matters is not the Scottish Government’s role, so I ask the committee to resist Brian Whittle’s amendment 13.

Turning to amendments 10 and 12, in George Adam’s name, we are already working closely with our delivery partners on the bill’s provisions and how they will be evaluated. Given the committee’s strong interest in the potential impacts of the bill’s provisions, we are happy to support those amendments. We will continue to work closely with our delivery partners to report in a timely manner, and those amendments will underpin our undertaking to do so.

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.