►
Description
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
Good
morning
and
welcome
to
the
24th
meeting
of
the
committee
in
2019,
I'd
like
to
remind
members
of
the
public
to
turn
off
their
mobile
phones
and
members
of
the
committee
using
electronic
devices,
Texas
committee
papers
should
ensure
the
turn
to
silent.
We've
received
apologies
from
Annabel,
Ewing,
MSP
and
I
will
come
in
my
heart,
but
MSP,
who
is
attending
as
a
substitute
member
welcome
Emma.
A
Our
first
item
on
the
agenda
today
is
the
committee's
continued
consideration
of
the
UEFA
European
Championship
Scotland
bill
at
stage
one
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
to
the
meeting
Gillian
mcnaught
senior
solicitor,
licensing
and
democratic
services
and
Neil
Colt
art
group
manager
for
Trading
Standards,
both
from
Glasgow
City,
Council
and
also
Andrew
Nevin
who's,
the
project
leader
for
the
Scottish
Football
Association,
Peter
dollars,
who's,
the
managing
director
of
houndin,
Park,
Limited
and
Michael
short.
Who
is
legal
counsel
for
UEFA?
A
Welcome,
and
thank
you
for
coming
to
give
evidence
to
us
this
morning
and
I
would
like
to
ask
you
a
couple
of
questions.
First
and
you
I
know
that
you
were
here
last
week
to
listen
to
the
first
evidence
session
that
we
had
with
the
Scottish
Police
Federation
and
others,
and
you'll
be
aware
that
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
timetable
for
this
legislation
and
can
I
ask
you:
when
did
you
first
make
it
clear
to
the
Scottish
government?
The
primary
legislation
was
needed.
Of
course,.
B
When
Glasgow
were
successful,
there
was
a
reference
to
the
need
for
improved
legislation,
but
the
options
were
left
available
to
the
whole
city,
as
they
almost
always
are,
and
the
the
the
the
the
the
most
specific
reference
to
primary
legislation
be
made
clear
was
in
early
stages
of
2019,
where
we
had
meetings
in
Glasgow.
That
was
followed
up
by
an
official
letter
in
April
of
2019.
B
B
A
Okay,
so
my
understanding
is
that
no
all
host
cities
same
of
countries
are
are
bringing
forward
claiming
the
legislation.
I
think
it's
four
out
of
the
twelve
if
I
remember
correctly,
and
so
it's
a
wide,
some
cities
need
primary
legislation
and
others
seem
to
be
able
to
do
this
by
regulation
so
understand.
An
England,
for
example,
is
done
by
regulations,
council
level.
B
That's
that
is
indeed
the
case.
The
position
from
nuevas
point
of
view
is
that
primary
legislation
is
mentioned
throughout
the
early
stages
of
the
bidding
process
as
a
possibility.
It
is
often
the
easiest
way
for
a
host
country
to
standardize
the
level
of
protection
and
to
offer
consistency
and
clarity
to
local
businesses
and
to
the
host
associations
itself
and
the
event
organisers
such
as
such
as
us,
and
that's
why
it's
mentioned
early
on.
However,
it's
not
mandated
the
thing
that
is
mandated
is
the
level
of
protection.
B
The
the
requirement
level,
which
is
set
out
by
your
wafer
and
discussed
with
the
host
cities,
is
equal
and
standard
across
the
board.
The
tools
to
get
to
that
level
to
get
to
that
requirement
are
up
to
the
whole
cities,
the
the
the
journey
to
get.
There
is
one
that
we
work
with
them
on
and
they
choose
the
route
to
get
there,
provided
that
they
can
get
there
for
some
host
country's
primary
legislation
has
been
the
obvious
or
and/or.
B
Lowest
friction
route
to
get
there
in
other
countries,
secondary
legislation,
municipality
decrease,
local
authority,
changes
to
bylaws
now
I've
been
utilized
and
in
some
other
cases,
is
simply
a
case
of
using
existing
laws,
but
reallocating
resources
in
a
different
way
and
or
utilizing
powers
that
are
temporary.
So
the
unique
nature
of
this
particular
gyro
across
12
jurisdictions,
12
countries,
12
different
sets
of
laws.
Meeting
one
requirement
level
is
very
difficult,
so
therefore
everybody
has
to
use
their
own
different
tools
to
get
there
and-
and
we
welcome
wholeheartedly
the
Scottish
Government's
choice
of
routier.
B
The
way
I'd
phrase
it
is
that,
yes,
there
was
absolutely
an
ongoing
discussion
about
where
their
existing
laws
existing
regulations
when
ization
tools
met
the
requirements
that
took
a
long
period
of
time
to
complete
that
discussion,
and
you
may
first
I'm
going
to
have
that
discussion
across
12
countries.
So
it's
a
very
complex
task
force
undertake,
but
that
did
take
a
bit
of
time.
When
we
got
to
the
end
of
that
discussion,
it
was
clear
from
all
stakeholders
that
primary
legislation
was
the
preferred
route.
It
was
mentioned.
B
We
have
physical
meetings
where
we
came
over
to
discuss
this
particular
issue
in
Hamden,
I,
think
right
in
early
2019
or
late
2018
and
and
every
party
across
the
around
the
table,
realized
and
I
believe
anyway
agreed
that
paralyzation
seemed
like
the
the
most
efficient,
pragmatic
and
proportionate
rate.
To
take
you.
Yes,
it
was
an
ongoing
discussion
and
it's
never
mandated
by
us.
We
did
send
a
letter
in
April
suggesting
that
this
was
the
preferred
course
of
action
for
all
stakeholders.
C
Should
make
it
clear
that,
from
my
perspective,
in
relation
to
the
trading
and
advertising
provisions,
we
had
discussions
Hamden
and
elsewhere
about
the
fact
that
the
current
legislation
that
involves
trade
or
restricting
trade
or
potentially
restricting
trade
a
wouldn't,
have
been
effective
in
terms
of
the
bill
required
or
sorry,
the
bid
document
requirements.
So
we
had
those
discussions
and
they
were
going
on
over
a
period
of
time.
It
was
hoped
that
some
movement
could
be
made
in
relation
to
how
to
resolve
that,
but
eventually,
what
we
agreed
or
not.
C
C
Movement
in
general,
both
in
terms
of
what
the
plan
would
look
like
how
we
would
a
carry
that
out
and
also
an
understanding
of
the
requirements
in
relation
to
a
permissions
to
trade
and
permissions
to
advertise,
and
it
was
clear
that,
in
relation
to
the
the
kind
of
core
protections
for
ticket
toting
advertising
and
a
street
trading
that
the
current
legislation,
we
have
wouldn't
have
satisfied
a
the
requirements
for
the
UFO
bit.
Yeah.
A
But
you
should
have
no
not
quite
a
long
time
ago.
Not
so
that's
my
point,
you
presume
when
you
that
any
only
our
stage
I
mean
this
committee
is
a
particular
in
chest
here,
because
we've
been
we're
dealing
with
this
legislation
that
really
quite
short
notice
and
it's
affected.
What
program
in
other
areas
so
will
have
a
particular
interest
in
knowing
why
it
was
so
last
minute.
I.
C
Think
that's
a
question
the
you
would
have
to
donate
to
the
civil
servants,
because
I
I
have
in
discussion
with
both
my
colleagues
and
the
council
and
also
with
wafer.
We
had
always
said
that
there
were
shortcomings
in
terms
of
the
routine
legislation
that
we
deal
with
from
a
consumer
protection
point
of
view
and
that's
been
made
clear
for
some
considerable
time.
D
Thank
you
convene
our
apologies
for
my
delay
and
arriven,
and
this
mornin
can
I
ask
last
week
we
asked
questions
about
if
any
lessons
were
learned
from
the
Commonwealth
Games.
So
for
those
who
were
involved
in
the
enforcement
procedures
around
the
Commonwealth
Games
is
there
any
I
know
you
start
to
have
discussions
with
traders
who
will
be
involved
this
time
around
and
I
do
understand.
The
discussions
have
been
quite
recent.
D
C
During
the
process
of
carrying
out
enforcement
at
the
Commonwealth
Games
and
subsequently,
we
had
a
whole
range
of
operational
discussions
about
how
we
would
do
things
slightly
differently
and
how
we
would
react
to
certain
things
that
experience,
if
you
like,
has
then
been
used
for
a
other
events.
Last
year
of
the
European
Championships,
we
use
some
of
our
experience,
albeit
that
wasn't
supported
by
primary
legislation,
and
we've
certainly
learned
from
the
nature
of
these
major
events
on
what
we
can
expect
in
terms
of
a
attempts
to
breach
or
attempts
to
inadvertently
breach.
C
There
was
in
2014.
There
are
a
number
of
businesses
who
I,
don't
think,
were
intending
to
reach
legislation,
but
had
a
mess,
understood
or
not
understood
the
restrictions
in
terms
of
the
Association
rates
and
this
trading
and
advertising,
and
once
we'd
had
discussions
with
them.
They
were
happily
then
complying
with
it.
So
those
lessons
have
been
learned.
C
D
C
C
I
don't
recognize
her.
There
were
given
the
size
of
the
operation
and
the
occasional
need
for
which
we
do
routinely
in
cooperation
with
the
police.
There
were
issues
where
there
would
be
a
difference
of
opinion
about
the
nature
of
enforcement,
and
we
would
then
discuss
that
with
the
police
and
it
was
resolved.
There
were
a
couple
of
incidents
where
there
had
been
a
misunderstanding
by
the
games
authorities
in
relation
to
the
delivery
by
a
couple
of
companies
to
lesser
Hamden,
a
it
was
resolved
in
a
couple
of
minutes,
and
it
was
a
misunderstanding.
C
It
didn't
impact
to
my
understanding
in
any
real
way
on
the
police's
ability
to
carry
out
their
functions
and
it
certainly
didn't
impinge
on
a
the
reputation
of
the
games
or
the
organization,
and
we
work
with
the
police
all
day
every
day.
You
know
it's
not
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
big
issues,
and
there
will
occasionally
be
resourcing
issues
which
means
that
either
we
or
they
can't
help
each
other.
But
that's
something
that's
resolved
by
discussion
is
not
a
big
issue,
so.
A
C
Thing
there
was
a
delivery
by
two
companies
who
were
providing
the
facilities
to
Lysanne
Hamden.
They
were
in
very
well
advertised
vans
and
Lori.
Those
lorries
were
not
part
of
the
sponsorship
arrangement.
The
organising
committee
felt
that
that
was
an
intentional
breach
of
the
restrictions
it
wasn't.
It
was
a
practical
issue
about.
If
you
have
drinks
and
food
to
be
delivered
to
a
venue
by
particular
companies,
the
reality
is,
they
will
have
branding
on
them
and
nobody,
the
organising
committee
after
discussion
and
us
all
the
police
had
any
real
issue
with
that.
C
E
But
in
your
response
from
last
week,
you
said,
UEFA
only
seeks
an
exemption
from
the
ticket
holding
offense
of
the
purpose
of
ensuring
that
the
initial
sale
of
tickets
by
your
wafer
is
not
caught
by
the
offense
and
therefore
privilege,
and
then
it's
a
your
wafer
has
absolutely
no
intention
of
touting
tickets
in
the
usual
sense
of
that
phrase.
Now
that
my
bit
surprised,
because
if
we're
banning
ticket
outing,
we
should
be
banning
ticket
toting,
ie
sale
of
a
ticket
above
it's
it's
price.
E
B
Phillie
understood
thanks
for
thanks
for
the
question
so
to
to
clarify
our
position
or
to
try
and
clarify
it.
Further
UFA
is
the
sole
seller
of
any
tickets
for
URI
for
Euro
2020,
and
it
does
so
at
a
profit.
It
is
our
product
that
we
sell
and
because
of
that,
the
wording
of
the
bill
may
regard
a
sale
by
UEFA
as
a
sale
for
profit,
which
then
be
caught
by
the
the
touting
the
definition
of
touting
that's
in
the
bill,
because
it's
not
only
sale
above
face
value.
B
E
Why
we're
doing
this?
Because
what
you're
suggesting
is
that
we
take
out
section
B,
which
says
with
a
view
to
making
a
profit
because
ticket
outing
it
would
be
caught.
Would
it
not
in
relation
to
the
sale
of
a
proposed
sale,
the
champion
certificate
for
an
amount
exceeding
the
ticket
spheres,
value.
B
I'm
not
going
to
suggest
that
just
because
I
fear
I
feel
that
I'm,
assuming
that
there
is
another
secondary
meaning
behind
that
subsection
in
that
clause,
that
I'm
not
sure
as
to
what
it
is
catching
I'm
sure,
however,
that
the
bill
drafters
in
the
build
team
will
be
able
to
clarify
that
point.
What
I
can
assure
you
is
that
the
traditional
and
the
wording
we
use
in
our
evidence,
but
ticketing
in
the
normal
sense
of
the
phrase.
The
reason
we
use
that
term
is
that
touting
is
a
legal
definition
occurring
in
this
bill.
B
So
therefore,
and
indeed
the
touting,
as
defined
in
the
bill,
includes
potentially
the
original
point
of
sale
of
an
original
product
by
us
for
profit
and
therefore
that
that
would
actually
prohibit
or
selling
the
tickets
in
the
first
place.
So
what
we
meant
in
our
elective
evidence
was
that
we
have
a
no
intention
of
the
traditional
sense
of
tithing
outside
of
the
legislative
definition
of
reselling
a
ticket
in
an
exploitative
manner
at
a
price
above
the
the
face
value.
That
is
something
that
UEFA
will
never
do.
E
Our
job
is
to
make
sure
the
law
is
clear,
of
course,
and
it
strikes
me,
I
mean
I,
understand
exactly
what
you're
saying
and
your
fear.
Your
fear
is
that
you
would
be
caught
literally
selling
the
tickets
to
start
with.
So
that's
so
you're
worried
really
about
subsection
section,
2,
subsection,
paragraph
2,
subsection
B
with
a
view
to
making
a
profit.
Okay,
so
part
of
our
job
would
be
to
perhaps
when
we
get
the
minister
in
is
to
suggest
that
that
is
removed
so
that
you
don't
have.
E
You
would
not
would
not
be
caught
for
that,
because
I
have
a
that,
might
just
be
an
issue
of
us
passing
a
law
and
what
the
law
piers
to
be,
because
what
this
law
had
passed
unamended
would
appear
to
give
you
give
you
a
fur
special
status
about
ticket
that
would
allow
it
to
take
a
totally
under
to
do
that.
So
I
understand
that
if
I
may
move
on
my
other
question
about
enforcement,
yes,.
A
E
Particularly
to
glass
or
thank
you
thank
you
for
that.
Mr.
short,
and
we
heard
last
week
from
the
Police
Federation
that
enforcement
officers
was
this
bill
will
be
given
more
powers
than
police
officers
and
in
the
bill
in
Subsection
16.
It
says
that
Glasgow
City
Council
may
designate
an
individual
as
an
enforcement
officer.
Only
if
the
individual
is
an
inspector
of
weights
and
measures
under
the
85
act
or
meets
such
other
criteria
as
may
be
specified
by
Scottish
Ministers
in
regulations
and
now
again,
I
come
back
to
this
issue
of
primary
legislation
or
regulations.
E
Our
job
as
MSPs
is
to
interrogate
primary
legislation
because
we
can't
amend
it
if
there
must
be
across
the
board.
Think
that
says
can
be
improved
by
amending
it.
What
we
can't
do
is
amend
government
regulations
so
I'm,
always
as
an
individual
wary
of
giving
regulation
power
to
ministers
that
MSPs
cannot
amend.
So
we've
got
now
primary
legislation.
So
my
concern
is:
if
we're
allowing
Glasgow
City
Council
to
give
powers
that
the
more
than
the
police
have
to
individuals,
I
don't
have
a
I.
E
Don't
have
a
worry
about
that
if
they
are
inspectors
of
weights
and
measures,
that's
fine,
but
it
means
this
actor.
This
bill
says
it
can
appoint
anybody
according
to
scholars,
their
regulations
which
which
we
can't
amend.
So
basically,
what
is
the
intention
of
Glasgow
City
Council
in
the
appointment
of
enforcement
officers?
Are
you
going
to
appoint
just
inspectors
of
weights
and
measures
from
Glasgow
City
Council
and
bring
in
others
from
other
local
authorities,
or
are
you
going
to
appoint
people
out
with
that.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
think
the
first
thing
I
would
point
I
would
make.
Is
that
27
under
police
powers
make
sure
that
constables
have
all
the
powers
that
enforcement
officers
have?
There
is
no
difference
in
terms
of
the
enforcement
powers.
The
difference
for
this
particular
issue
is
that
the
police
have
this
sorry.
The
issue
here
is
that
police
have
the
same
powers
as
the
enforcement
officers
would
have.
So
there
isn't
any
postman.
E
C
C
But
not
everybody
who
carries
out
enforcement
requires
to
be
an
inspector
of
weights
and
measures,
which
is
why
the
second
clause
is
there
to
make
sure
that
people
who
are
suitably
qualified
and
suitably
experienced
can
carry
out
that
enforcement
role
and
I
would
not
be
expecting
to
appoint
or
second
or
a
gathered.
Anybody
who
was
not
suitably
experienced
right.
E
C
C
E
F
Just
on
the
the
point
of
the
police
Federation's
evidence
that
the
enforcement
officers
would
have
more
powers
than
a
police
officer,
I
mean
the
the
point
they
were
making
is
that
the
enforcement
officers
will
have
more
power
than
a
police
officer
would
normally
have
their
police
officers
will
gain
additional
powers
under
this
legislation
as
well
in
effect
particular
around
whether
or
not
sections
can
be
conducted
with
or
without
a
warrant
etc.
But
I'll
come
back
to
that
in
a
second,
so
I'd
like
to
M
just
ask
mr.
F
short
first
around
this
and
you
have
written
submission
on.
This
was
really
useful.
You'll.
Be
aware
that
this
was
an
area
of
substantial
concern.
Our
last
evidence
session
and
just
to
clarify
you've
confirmed
that
you,
if
I,
don't
go
to
that
level
of
detail
when
specifying
the
kind
of
enforcement
powers
that
horse
country
would
need
to
give
to
these
officers.
But
you
do
have
a
rights
protection
program.
Could
you
detail
a
little,
but
how
a
horse
country
would
be
able
to
judge
for
itself
whether
it
meets
the
criteria
of
the
rights
protection
program?
F
Because
the
question
the
committee
has
at
the
moment
of
one
of
the
questions
we've
got
as
whether
or
not
these
specific
enforcement
powers
are
required
and
from
you.if
as
written
evidence,
you've
said
you've
not
specified
that
they
have
to
be
required.
So
what
we're
trying
to
figure
out
now
is
why
why
it
was
judged
here
domestically
that
they,
where
necessary.
So
if
you
could
detail
how
you
expect
a
host
country
to
judge
itself
against
the
rights
protection
program,
that
would
be
useful.
B
The
clarity
on
that
point
was
that
there
was
absolutely
no
intention
to
at
any
stage
require
people
who
were
not
fully
qualified
and
authorized
and
experienced
to
undertake
any
enforcement
Paris.
We
don't
require
a
whole
city
to
ever
go
outside
of
their
normal
processes
of
using
police
officers
and
qualified
qualified
local
authority
enforcement
officers
or
training
standards.
We
always
desire
that
host
cities
continue
to
use
the
resources
that
they
have
on
whether
a
host
city
can
judge
itself
on
the
Vice
protection
program.
B
The
process
we
undertake
is
that
we
we
distribute
what
it
what
we
phrase
as
a
legal
matrix
to
all
the
host
cities,
which
we
then
negotiate
and
negotiate
discuss
at
various
meetings
and
receive
input
lots
of
different
stakeholders
involved
within
enforcement
powers
in
that
city
that
that
document
is
sanded
across
the
board
across
all
12
four
cities
and
details.
All
of
the
areas
of
concern
that
are
rights
protection
program
includes
including
such
things
as
ambush
marketing,
counterfeit
goods,
unauthorized
advertising,
ticket
outing
and
various
other.
B
More
granular
versions
of
that
that
documents
completed
and
then
discussed
and
was
discussed
and
indeed,
in
this
instance
around
a
table
with
all
the
stakeholders
in
the
room,
examples
up
on
the
screen
and
and
we
discuss
as
a
group
what
tools
are
currently
in
place,
who
would
undertake
them
and
the
the
effectiveness
of
the
current
tools.
So
it's
a
very
an
arcane
in
a
very
collaborative
approach,
using
a
standardized
document
across
the
board
whereby
the
answers
are
then
considered
reviewed
and
evaluated
by
everybody
and
then
recommendations
made
thereafter.
Thank.
F
You
and
just
to
kind
of
drill
down
on
the
specific
concern
that
there's
a
resin
around
this
and
where
the
specific
enforcement
person
of
course
concerned
so
around
searching
of
property,
the
seizure
and
destruction
of
property,
and
where
are
those
powers
to
be
hailed
only
by
police
officers
ie,
where
the
proposals
to
get
them
to
enforcement
officers,
that
psycho
and
so
I
mended
out
of
the
bell?
And
but
those
powers
would
still
exist.
Police
officers,
kids,
they'll
conduct
any
required
operation
there.
With
that,
tell
me
you
effort
requirements
and.
B
It
would
meet
UAS
requirements,
provided
that
the
whole
city
can
then
make
themselves
comfortable
that
they
have
the
adequate
resources
to
be
able
to
do
it.
Who
does
their
activity
is
not
to
find
or
mandated
by
UEFA
that
it's
able
to
be
done
practically
and
pragmatically
is
so
usually
this
extension
or
this
sharing
of
responsibilities
or
defining
of
responsibilities,
is
a
resources
question
based
around
making
sure
that
adequately
trained
and
experienced
people
and
an
adequate
number
of
them
are
available.
So
forgive
me
for
the
long
answer.
The
short
answer
would
be
no.
C
The
reality
is
that
these
powers
are
needed
in
order
to
carry
out
the
the
effective
control
of
trading
and
advertising
in
the
controlled
zones.
I
had
an
expectation
that
those
powers
would
be
would
fall
to
the
Trading
Standards
section
and
jointly
with
the
police
I
never
made
a
recommendation
that
it
should
be
the
police
or
Trading
Standards.
C
It
was
my
expectation-
and
that
was
based
on
experience
of
the
Commonwealth
Games
of
a
whole
number
of
other
areas
of
em
trade
and
consumer
protection,
where
our
brand
protection,
where
it
is
normally
the
trading
standard
services
that
lead
on
the
functions
of
trademark
trade,
Sony
and
brand
protection.
But
it
wasn't
me
I,
didn't
insist
on
the
extra
powers,
but
they
are
necessary
in
terms
of
carrying
out
the
the
control
function.
Just.
F
On
this
specific
question,
then
of
do
enforcement
officers
need
to
hold
these
powers
or
can
they
use
the
services
of
the
police
where
called
upon?
So
one
of
the
concerns
raised
was
around
their
ability
to
search
property
and
particularly
the
question
of
what
defines
with
or
without
the
use
of
force,
to
enter
property.
F
So
the
use
of
a
walks
method
apparently
not
be
defined
as
use
of
force
that
the
Police
Federation
were
concerned
about
that,
and
is
it
really
necessary
for
an
enforcement
officer
to
have
the
ability
to
with
the
aid
of
a
locksmith
enter
a
property
to
search
it
when
they
couldn't
fight,
simply
call
upon
a
police
officer
to
do
that?
For
them,
those
those
are
the
kind
of
operations
that
any
member
of
the
public
would
regard
as
being
normally
an
area
in
which
you
would
call
on
the
services
of
the
police.
F
C
I
would
agree
that
it
is
a
resourcing
question.
I
would
also
say
that,
given
the
profile
of
the
events,
given
that
the
police
have
huge
other
responsibilities
in
relation
to
protecting
the
public
to
tackling
or
protecting
the
public
from
all
sorts
of
other
activity,
including
counterterrorism,
etc,
etc,
that
what
I
wouldn't
want
to
do
is
have
a
position,
we're
a
very
short
term
requirement
which
DS
will
be
given
the
nature
of
the
competition.
C
C
We
entered
lots
of
business
premises
and
I
have
the
powers,
under
all
sorts
of
other
legislation,
to
enter
business
premises
and
indeed,
to
enter
a
domestic
dwelling
M,
provided
they
are
used
in
conjunction
with
a
business.
So
these
are
not
powers
that
we
are
not
familiar
with.
They
are
phrased
in
a
different
way
and
they
are
for
a
different
purpose,
but
it's
stuff
that
Trading
Standards
staff
deal
with
on
a
fairly
routine
basis.
Thank.
F
A
E
You
very
much
batons
and
section
21
of
the
bill
that
doesn't
give
you
the
power
to
enter
households.
Section
21
says:
if
you
do
enter
a
household,
you
have
to
be
accompanied
by
a
constable
you
on
section
20,
you
don't
have
the
power
to
enter
a
house
on
your
own.
As
an
enforcement
officer,
section
21
says
you
must
do
it
at
reasonable
times
and
accompanied
by
a
constable,
but.
C
My
point-
I
sorry
I,
should
have
been
more
clear.
Was
that
if
the
police
were
doing
this
as
the
only
authority
that
had
those
functions,
then
they
would
be
taking
two
or
more
police
officers
away
from
functions
to
do
that
if
they
do
it
with
the
supportive
training
standards.
Do
that
with
the
support
and
a
consent
of
a
police
constable,
then
we're
only
taking
one
constable
away
from
duty
or.
E
E
G
We've
touched
on
already
mr.
Coker
about
the
traders
and
the
business
community
and
I.
Think
Communications
is
going
to
be
vitally
important
and
you
acknowledge
what
you've
done
in
the
past
when
it's
come
to
engagement
with
some
of
those
traders
and
that
business
community
so
can
I
ask
you
what
engagement
you've
had
to
date?
C
At
the
end
of
August,
there
were
two
public
engagement
sessions
where
a
number
of
people
were
invited
to
view
what
would
have
been
draft
and
our
draft
a
maps
of
the
zones
that
have
some
potential
control
over
them
or
restriction
on
them.
That
type
of
process
will
be
continued
once
the
legislative
process
is
complete.
If
it
is,
then
what
we
would
do
is
have
further
public
meetings.
C
We'd
also
engage
with
businesses
that
we
know
and
can
will
identify
or
have
identified
as
being
within
these
areas
to
make
sure
that
they
understand
the
requirements
and
the
restrictions
that
are
placed
on
them.
In
addition
to
that,
what
we
would
do
is
contact
business
and
trade
organizations
to
make
sure
that
they
were
also
aware
of
that,
and
we
would
then
use
the
normal
public
and
press
process
to
highlight
the
fact
that
there
would
be
changes
surrounding
the
Euro
2020
competition
as.
G
C
So
we
would
certainly
make
sure
that
all
the
businesses
that
were
directly
affected
would
be
informed
and
being
given
the
opportunity
to
either
engage
public
event
or
engage
and
I
use
the
term
advisedly
privately,
because
they
may
have
individual
questions
that
they
don't
nest
the
one
to
go
through
a
public
meeting.
Okay,.
H
G
I
Times
of
the
question
yeah,
we
would
obviously
work
in
tandem
with
UFO
in
terms
of
what
we
were
permitted
to
do,
a
relative
to
potential
Scotland
match
at
Hampden
Park.
Clearly
we
understand
that
obviously
unifies
exclusivity
in
terms
of
the
Hampton
Park
campus
and
in
terms
of
the
the
commercial
program
that's
implemented
there.
So
that's
a
matter
that
clearly
at
the
appropriate
time,
we
would
release
today
globally,
for
and
my
understanding
is
that
that
we
probably
would
not
be
permitted
to
can't
hurt
such
activity
as
that
program
would
be
run
entirely
by
UEFA
Thank.
H
J
Everybody
I'm
interested
in
training
of
enforcement
officers
and
it
in
our
briefing.
It
says
that
enforcement
officers
will
be
drawn
from
staff
members
in
in
Glasgow,
City,
Council
and
so
I'm
interested
in
how
is
training
to
be
planned
and
how
is
it
carried
out
and
how
many
people,
then,
will
be
required
to
have
additional
education,
education
I'm,
assuming
that
mainly
of
the
Trading
Standards
enforcement
officers,
will
have
already
had
experience
from
Commonwealth
Games,
for
instance.
Thank.
C
You,
yes,
all
of
the
staff,
would
one
exception:
em
were
involved
in
the
Commonwealth
Games,
and
all
of
them
were
involved
in
the
European
Championships
last
year
and
all
of
them
have
been
involved
in
some
other
large
events.
Some
of
us
who
are
more
mature
were
even
at
the
previous
UEFA
events
and
the
early
two-thousands.
C
Some
of
us
were
even
there
in
the
1990s
and
1980s,
but
the
training
package
we
have-
and
part
of
that
is
because
this
bill
has
been
drafted
with
the
comer
of
games
act
in
mind
or
in
the
as
an
advisory
package.
Is
that
what
we
then
have
is
a
training
package
that
takes
the
staff
through
not
only
the
provisions
of
the
bills
and
our
the
act
if
it
becomes
one
and
the
regulations,
but
also
the
details
of
the
planning
areas
under
the
commercial
zones.
C
It
also
reinforces
the
enforcement
provisions
and
the
enforcement
policy
that
the
council
has
for
every
activity,
which
is
our
view
and
preference
is
that
people
are
businesses
and
individuals
are
encouraged
into
compliance
before
we
take
any
informal
enforcement
action
and
that
experience
was
borne
out
during
the
Commonwealth
Games
when
all
of
the
activities
that
we
dealt
with,
with
the
exception
of
the
the
police
reports
in
relation
it
or
potentially
policed.
The
reports
in
relation
to
were
dealt
with
by
discussion
and
persuasion
rather
than
more
formal
reports,
the
fiscal
or
similar
activity.
C
But
the
training
package
for
this
I
would
envisage
being
probably
a
half
day
of
training
on
the
detail
of
a
regulations
on
the
bill
and
a
further
half
day
on
things
like
trademarks
and
Association
rights.
To
make
sure
that
we
everybody
within
my
team
and
anybody
else,
was
aware
of
exactly
what
the
trademarks
where
and
exactly
what
the
Association
rights
are.
J
C
Would-
and
we
have
already
engaged
with
the
police
in
relation
to
the
events
and
as
a
matter
of
course,
what
we
would
have
done.
We'd
be
invite
some
police
officers
I'm,
not
volunteering,
to
train
the
hall
of
police
Scotland.
But
we
would
didn't
invite
some
a
police
officers
to
the
training
so
that
they
were
given
the
same
level
of
briefing
as
the
enforcement
staff.
A
I
Be
clear
and,
as
mr.
Shaw
said
earlier,
and
has
evidence
submission
when
we
looked
at
the
feasibility
of
bidding
for
UEFA
Euro,
2020,
UEFA's
tournament
requirements
and
dossier
templates
were
clear
that
there
may
be
a
need
for
primary
legislation.
That
need
was
reflected
within
our
bid
submission
to
Aoife
I'm.
There
was
actually
pulled
up
by
AFIS
evaluation
report
in
August
of
2014,
and
that
has
been
a
process
of
ongoing
dialogue
between
the
Association
and
the
various
LLC
board.
I
Parties
to
the
UEFA,
Euro
2020
classical
project
over
a
number
of
years
know
about
the
potential
need
for
the
implementation
of
primary
legislation
so
again
and
taking
the
convenience
point
from
the
being
of
the
meeting
about
the
concern.
You
know
there's
some
terrible
the
late
arrival
of
this
before
the
committee,
and
that
has
been
an
ongoing
process
of
consideration
of
the
need
for
primary
legislation
for
a
period
of
time.
I
have
to
say-
and
we
have
been
party
to
that-
and.
K
I
K
I
To
be
clear,
the
the
team
delivering
me
for
you
to
2020
Glasgow
is
a
kind
of
a
partnership
between
the
Scottish
Football
Association
Scottish
Ministers
Glasgow
City
Council
Hamilton
part
limited
visit
Scotland
that
same
team
has
been
together
from
those
said.
The
process
going
back
to
2013
actually
considered
the
feasibility
for
the
bid.
So
there
has
been
ongoing
dialogue
with
all
officials
across
all
of
the
that
they
saw
partner
authorities
about
this
need
for
a
period
of
thing.
So.
K
I
Scottish
Government
we're
aware
that
this
may
well
be
a
potential
requirement
and
again
wanted
to
fully
investigate
afterward
opportunities
in
which
to
implement
these
measures
in
a
different
way.
But,
yes,
we
were
clear
in
Scottish,
government
officials
were
true
that
this
ultimately
may
be
required
to
be
implemented.
Can.
L
Of
the
the
campus
and
I
can
only
speak
for
Hampton
Park
and
the
campus
directly.
I
personally,
a
nom
de
partir
limit
have
involved
a
since
1999
across
a
Champions
League
final
2002
2007
year
for
Cup
final
olympic
football
matches,
2012
in
Glasgow,
2014,
Commonwealth,
Games,
the
size
and
scale
of
this
event
that
is
coming
to
Scotland,
thus,
as
deemed
to
be
the
third
biggest
sporting
event,
no
I,
don't
what
that
comes.
A
national-security
implantations
after
beta
deployed
on
the
campus,
therefore
Hamlin's
defined
property
under
parks
at
the
fame.
L
L
L
Yeah
the
events
or
was
it
a
formal
Glasgow
City
Council,
undertook
a
review
I
feel
like
a
post
event
reviewed
of
the
operations.
The
campus,
the
delineation,
of
the
campus
for
the
spectacular
and
tournament
very
much
follows
the
successful
delivery
of
you
to
twenty
to
eight
of
the
Commonwealth
Games.
If
we're
by
hand
and
a
invited
n
in
the
region
of
four
hundred
eighty
thousand
people
over
ten
days
and
which
was
successfully
from
Honda
parts
point
of
view,
we
never
had
any
a
negative.
L
M
M
C
I
C
Service
Canada's
car
sales,
car
sales
colleges,
there
will
be
one
at
least
in
the
perimeter
of
Hamden.
There
isn't
any
and
either
the
mountain
city
or
George
Square
venues
there
used
to
be
a
second
one
in
Hamden
understanding
is
that's
currently
ceased
trading,
but
there
is
definitely
one
within
the
zone
and
I.
M
Just
think
ago,
also
one
of
the
main
sponsors
as
a
vehicle
manufacturer
and
just
thinking
in
terms
of
the
for
our
Indy
car
sales
garages
that
potential
sales
cars
are
not
from
the
spoken
one
of
the
main
sponsors
of
the
tournament
in
terms
of
their
advertising,
their
activities,
so
the
championship
period,
in
particular,
habitat,
be
dealt
with
and
also
cinder,
the
host
of
exceptions,
but
but
habitat
be
dealt
with
if
they,
if
they
attended,
attempted
to
do
some
additional
activities
that
that
were
deemed
to
be.
You
know
in
contradiction
to
the
law.
C
C
We
would
carry
a
survey
of
the
businesses,
not
just
colleges,
but
all
sorts
of
businesses
in
the
areas
that
would
be
affected
by
the
controls
to
have
an
understanding
involve
exactly
what
they
currently
do
and
how
they
operate
their
business
and
they
make
sure
that
there
hadn't
been
any
unreasonable
changes
after
the
regulations
came
into
force,
and
particularly
during
the
restricted
periods
around
the
competition
itself.
Okay,.
M
Second
question
regarding
also
one
of
the
sponsors
is
a
delivery
company
yeah.
What's
a
stop,
maybe
a
competitor
company
hiring
people
just
to
way
of
their
particular
efforts
to
go
around
the
particular
zones
and
and
and
there
may,
if
they
were
stopped
by
either
one
of
the
enforcement
officers
or
by
the
police.
M
C
M
You
won't
be
doing
all
those
activities
after
that
after
the
period
so
in
terms
of
after
the
the
championship
period,
what
type
of
activity,
but
you
then
undertake
in
terms
of
if
someone
were
to
potentially
stolen
fringe
of
corn,
what
that
what
the
bill
is
actually
sort
what
the
active
or
lash,
let's
see
it.
The.
C
Normal
processes
that
the
control
zones
would
only
operate
for
those
deeds
that
you're
talking
about.
If
we
found
anything
during
that
period
and
it
required
to
be
followed
up
and
the
report
made
to
the
fiscal,
then
we
would
continue
to
do
those
preparations
after
a
the
competition
had
been
completed.
So
we
might
still
need
powers
after
the
completion
of
a
the
actual
competition,
but
we
wouldn't
intend
to
do
anything
other
than
the
windup
of
any
formal
enforcement
action
after
the
period
that
the
games
so
now
it
gives
the
competition
was
completed.
M
To
service
the
short
just
regarding
her
UFOs
corporate
sponsors,
can
you
provide
some
further
information
regarding
that?
The
detail
that
the
the
commercial
sponsors
actually
and
their
sort
of
limitations
are
required,
something
third,
the
championship
period
of
time?
What
is
it
they
actually
need?
What
is
that
they
want
in
order
to
to
deliver
what
they
deemed
to
be
part
of
the
outcomes
for
sponsor
an
event.
B
B
Fool
exclusivity
is
provided
to
sponsors
to
do
what
we
call
activations
so
to
do
promotions
and
to
do
advertising
inside
that
those
spaces
and
to
licensees
to
sell
product
exclusive
area
to
sell
product.
That's
within
the
tightest
zone
that
we
have,
which
is
the
security
perimeter,
the
commercial
perimeter
or
or
the
the
event
zone
is
an
area
where
by
sponsors,
where
we
are
obligated
to
undertake
the
rights
protection
program
and
therefore
the
sponsors
benefit
from
the
rights
protection
program.
Within
that
space
they
have
a.
They
have
a
right
to
be
the
sole
approved.
B
Activation
of
any
sort
as
a
UEFA
partner,
whether
that
be
advertising,
if
you're
a
sponsor
or
sale.
If
your
allies
see-
and
so
they
have
an
expectation
to
be
the
only
approved
partner
in
that
in
that
area,
and
that
is
effectively
the
the
events
or
under
this
legislation
and
then
the
thereafter
simply
the
obligations
for
us
to
undertake
the
rights
protection
program
to
increase
the
the
the
protection.
The
the
value
of
those
rights
within
those
areas
and
those
areas
are
then
negotiated
with
the
host
city.
As.
M
The
risk
of
the
possibility
that
that
the
delivery
on
the
ground
will
be
different
or
slightly
different
in
each
of
the
four
cities.
So
in
effect,
if
if
a
fan
went
to
a
number
of
games
in
different
cities
to
be
very
lucky
to
do
sort,
of
course,
over
the
course
of
the
course.
But
if
there
we
have
to
do
that
as
there
are,
then
the
possibility
that
Elijah
C
have
a
definite
experience.
Notwithstanding
the
city
of
course,
but
have
that
experience
with
under
controlled
zones
each
of
the
different
stadium.
B
And
the
one
that
point,
the
controlled
zones
will
obviously
be
slightly
different
everywhere.
You
go
there
lightly
different
sizes
and
scales
just
dependent
upon
the
geography
of
the
places
that
the
stadia
or
the
fan,
meeting
or
fanzones
are
located
so
that
we
a
slightly
different
experience
there,
of
course,
in
the
commercial
perimeter
and
the
event
zones
that
we're
talking
about
it
is
all
dependent
upon
the
successful
delivery
of
the
rights
protection
program.
So
to
answer
your
question,
yes,
of
course
it
is
possible.
B
There
is
a
risk
that
a
a
fan
or
a
spectator,
which
would
experience
ever
so
slightly
a
difference
in
delivery
of
that
rights
protection
program
in
each
country,
because
it
is
dependent
upon
the
successful
delivery
by
by
human
beings
by
local
authorities
and
by
police
officers.
Who
will
all
obviously
have.
B
M
And
finally,
of
say
after
leech,
each
tournament
I
would
imagine
about
a
great
deal
of
work.
They
were
undertaken
to
to
analyze
the
effectiveness
off
of
UFOs
requirements
and,
as
a
consequence
of
that,
what
lessons
have
you
filmed
from
previous
European
Championships
that
that
you've
requested
or
demanded
be
implemented
for
the
year
of
2020
championships?
Notwithstanding
the
fact,
obviously,
it's
a
different
format,
this
time,
of
course,
in
the
different
cities,
you.
B
B
We've
done
it
before
this
is
not
new,
but
we
are
committed
to
try
and
do
it
even
better
use
new
techniques
to
do
that,
whether
that
be
digital
or
online,
and
also
resources
on
the
ground
by
getting
people
over
here
to
to
help
with
the
training,
and
the
guidance
has
already
been
hinted
at
for
mr.
Cotard
anyway,
for
thoroughly
supports
diamo
and
will
will
provide
its
resources
and
help
to
do
that.
Training
and
information
distribution.
Thank.
M
K
You,
sir
question
for
you
wafer
and
returning
to
the
subject
of
ticket
touting
you
ask
questions
by
my
colleague
my
crumbles
and
I
heard
what
you
said
about
not
wanting
to
be
caught
by
the
for-profit
element.
Can
I
just
be
absolutely
certain
I've
read
your
reread
your
submission
on
this?
Is
there
any
scenario
under
which
you
wafer
would
sell
tickets
above
face
value.
B
I'm,
not
a
ticketing
expert
I'm,
not
part
of
the
ticketing
department,
but
my
answer
that
is
no
the
face
value
is
the
face
value.
We
are
the
original
seller
of
a
ticket
and
we
would
always
sell
it
at
the
face
value.
Even
through
the
resale
platform,
the
ticket
is
resold
to
another
spectator
at
the
same
price.
That
is
the
determining
additions
of
the
resale
platform.
H
A
You
very
much
you'll
be
will
it
was
a
discussion
last
week
about
the
potential
charity,
auctioning
off
tickets,
which
you've
addressed
in
Urim
and
your
written
submission
to
us.
It
was
obviously
an
issue
that
was
raised
by
the
Scottish
Police
Federation.
To
be
perfectly
honest,
I
wasn't
absolutely
cleared
in
reading
your
submission
and
as
to
what
the
position
was
of
people
who
were
auctioning
tickets
for
charity,
because,
although
you
said
you
weren't,
you
weren't
demanding
that
it
was
made
illegal
or
anything
and
you
you
still
had
certain
rights.
A
B
The
reason
that
causes
issues
for
auctions,
obviously
the
the
ultimate
holder,
particulars
unknown,
and
that
is
why
any
mechanism
that
involves
a
ticket
moving
to
an
unknown
third
party
is
a
breach
of
the
ticketing
terms
and
conditions
for
the
purposes
of
charitable
auctions.
Here
we
have
absolutely
no
intention
and
put
hope
to
ensure
that
this
bill
would
never
trigger
any
form
of
criminal
offence
on
a
charity
seeking
to
do
good
work
by
by
auctioning
off
off
a
ticket.
A
B
A
N
Say
good
morning
panel
the
fanzones
I
mean
I'm,
looking
at
their
bone,
that
he's
over
them
and
I'm
a
bit
mystified
as
to
what
the
collected
have
been
for
the
designating
the
bone,
that
of
these
fans
ones.
For
example,
if
we
look
at
the
Hamden
a
zone,
a
notice,
for
example,
the
junction
of
cart,
Road
and
Kings
Park
roads
is
not
really
included
in
the
fines
own
and
someone
who
has
there
been
to
hand
in
many
times
from
watching
scorn
to
some
metals,
glorious,
1987,
fraeno
victory.
That's
our
plea
allocation.
N
We
have
fire
we're
often
finds
by.
You
know
the
hats.
The
scarves
are
badges
football
programs
etc.
So
that's
not
included
in
it.
Kings
Park
station
is
em.
You
know
em,
but
Queen
Street
station
isn't
in
the
george
square.
Once
I'm
just
wondering
what
the
what
they're
thinking
is
behind
the
designation
of
the
fan
zones,
I
mean
they
are
always,
for
example,
that
finds
only
glasgow
also
goes
right
behind
assay
chambers,
which
is
quite
odd
to
me,
know
what
will
really
be
an
understand
why
that
would
be
a
location
for
finds.
I
can't.
N
C
You
know
the
easiest
thing
to
do
and
we
wouldn't
do
it,
but
the
easiest
thing
to
do
is
to
draw
a
big
circle
around
a
venue
at
some
distance,
which
would
then
include
everything
that
area
that
people
gather
etc,
but
in
order
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
reasonable
balance
between
the
restrictions
that
are
in
place
for
the
commercial
zone
and
free
trade
and
free
movement,
etc.
That
has
to
be
a
compromise.
C
That's
why
the
drafted
plan
for
the
around
Hampden
includes
a
slightly
strange
dog
like
a
don't
to
Kings
Park
station,
but
because
it
would
be
unreasonable,
I
think
to
include
Kings
Park
stations
simply
by
drawing
an
egg
sheet
around
the
whole
of
the
Hamden
area.
That
would
include
Kings
Park,
so
there
is
always
going
to
be
a
level
of
compromise
and
negotiation
about
those
boundaries.
C
One
of
the
requirements-
and
it
goes
back
to
one
of
the
points
others
have
made
before
that
we
need
in
terms
of
enforcement,
is
an
absolute
clarity
about
where
that
boundary
is
so.
Some
of
the
issues
around
the
fan
zones,
the
reason
that
they
stopped
particular
junctions
or
and
a
may
stop
a
particular
junctions
in
order
is
to
make
absolutely
sure
that
we
can
identify
that
that
person
is
or
is
not
inside
the
control
zone.
N
I
mean
understand
that
I
mean
obviously
the
you
know
you
for
want
to
have
it's
a
monopoly
within
that
someone,
but
assists
that
there,
this
one
boundary
and
knowing
the
area
really
pretty
well
actually
as
the
tea.
It
just
doesn't
to
me,
make
much
sense,
particularly
in
Hamden,
that
you
know
they're
kind
of
south
western
end
of
hand,
and
as
I
mentioned,
you
know,
Cathcart
Road
exiting
in
Kings
Park
game.
N
You
know
that
kind
of
a
junction,
that's
a
very,
very
busy
Avenue,
where
the
fans
all
pale
through
and
the
plenty
of
opportunities
to
buy
ad
hoc
my
option
days
long
before
they
get
to
the
stadium
and
if
that's,
what
you're
trying
to
diminish
and
then
I
would
have
thought.
This
would
really
be
altered
to
take
that
kind
of
area
and
to
account,
given
the
kind
of
obvious
efforts
you've
made
to
ensure
a
king's
park
it
can
a
droid
area
is
included.
L
L
We've
got
the
hunting
campus
that
aches
protection
zone,
which
is
that
the
way
there
areas
that
you
defer
to
go
towards
the
stations
to
protect
a
the
the
ticket
to
thing
and
the
branding,
whereas
in
the
city
center
there
are
fair
to
delineated
fans
ones.
It's
just
a
slight
difference
in
terminology.
Green
sate
is.
L
N
L
Delayed
again
referred
in
specific
to
Hamden
ad,
particularly
Mount
Florida,
that
railway
station
will
be
I,
mean
after
day
for
fans
travel
to
the
stadium
and
from
transport
hubs
around
the
stadium.
So,
therefore,
the
protected
rate
zone
is
say
around
the
stadium
to
protect
the
commercial
interests
of
EF
as
partners
as
the
spectators
approached.
The
immediate
vicinity
of
the
stadium.
N
Okay,
thanks
very
much
younger
I
wouldn't
pursue,
but
I'm
just
convinced
I'm,
not
convinced
that
that's
the
this
is
that
a
boundary
for
me.
You
know
first
point
of
view
because
you
know
we're
talking
about
boundary
literally
yards
from
the
stadium
I
mean
it
seems
to
you
literally,
come
at
Junction,
you
just
ton
rate
in
your
rate
at
lesser
handin
in
Hamden
itself,
so
I
just
don't
understand
why
it's
been
drawing
me
other
HIEs,
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
ascertain.
It
seems
to
be
almost
random
and
I
mean
again
mr.
Coulter
right.
N
C
See
I
didn't
draw
the
boundaries,
but
the
issue
there
is
that
if
you
look
at
the
joint
Street,
which
runs
at
the
back
of
the
chambers,
when
there
have
been
larger
events
in
George
Square,
that
has
been
an
area
we
have
people
have
a
been
offering
for
sale.
A
variety
of
items,
I
should
say
there
are
new
licensed
Street
traders
in
that
area
anyway,
so
it
wouldn't
the
Street
trading.
Part
of
it
should
not
be
affected,
necessarily
all
that
much
because
that
is
generally
not
a
promotion
given
for
Street
trading
within
the
George
Square
area.
C
F
The
thanks:
can
you
not
realize
time
short
to
so
just
be
brief.
I'm
just
a
bit
concerned
about
section
17
4
of
the
bill
goes
in
enforcement
officers.
The
ability
to
essentially
recruit
anyone.
They
need
to
help
them
with
enforcement.
The
wording
is
that
they
can
recruit
any
other
person,
as
may
be
reasonably
required
for
the
purposes
of
taking
action,
I
assume.
In
most
cases,
that
would
mean
asking
police
officer
to
help,
but
I've
wondering
mr.
Cota.
F
C
The
the
easiest
example
I
could
give.
You
would
be
one
where
it
was
suggested
that
there
was
a
breach
of
not
only
these
provisions,
but
also
the
trade
marks
act
and
what
we
might
then
do
is
ask
somebody
who
was
either
from
the
brand
to
come
and
identify
that
this
was
indeed
a
counterfeit
period
of
our
money,
Jean.
Whatever
the
item
wants,
and
it's
those
sorts
of
inverted
commas,
technical
experts
that
we
might
bring
in
on
a
very
rare
occasion,
given
the
fluidity
of
enforcement.
C
However,
and
that's
something
that
we
would
have
to
deal
with
on
a
practical
sorry
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
the
other
situation
that
we
would
have.
That
was
something
that
we
did
have
to
deal
with.
The
Commonwealth
Games
was
where
somebody
had
put
a
banner
a
way
above
a
reasonable
access
ground
level.
What
we
then
needed
to
do
was
bring
in
somebody
who
could
use
high
access,
a
facilities,
a
cherry
picker
in
order
to
do
that
assistance.
C
F
Individual
enforcement
officers
have
the
power
to
make
that
decision
or
if
they
are
required,
to
bring
the
Kenna
fault
that
you've
just
used
as
examples
to
kind
of
bring
them
in
with
that,
would
they
be
required
to
ask
management?
Ask
a
supervisor
before
doing
so
just
concerned
about
leaving
this?
What
is
as
written
in
the
legislation,
a
very
broad
power
in
the
hands
of
any
individual
enforcement
officer.
C
Because
of
the
ravages
of
resources
and
cost
I
can
guarantee
you
that
any
enforcement
officer
who
is
going
to
expect
a
cherry
picker
to
be
arriving
anywhere
when
they
hummed
in
all
the
surrounding
areas,
we'd
be
getting
my
permission
also.
He
would
be
asking
for
my
permission
whether
they
get
it
would
be
it
matter
that
we'd
have
to
deal
with
I.
F
Mean
the
cherry
pickers
I
totally
get
that
examples,
I
suppose
the
concern
that
the
kind
of
stuff
the
Police
Federation
were
concerned
about
as
an
enforcement
officer
needs
a
hand
with
something,
so
they
get
their
big
burly
mate,
who
loves
her
in
the
corner
to
come
and
help
them
for
ten
minutes,
but
they're
protected
under
the
legislation.
These.
C
F
C
A
I,
don't
want
to
do
so
without
reasoning.
The
very
important
topic
of
young
people
busking,
which
was
we'd
all
wanted
quite
a
lot
of
time
to
last
week,
because
of
course
we
have
many
talented
young
people
in
Glasgow
and
it's
a
very
popular
activity
and
no
the
act
said
yeah.
The
bill
itself
proposes
to
criminalize
within
the
zones
M
providing
public
entertainment
for
gain
or
award.
But
in
your
submission
you
Aoife,
you
see
that
it's
a
not
an
activity
that
is
required
to
be
habited
under
the
rates
protection
program.
B
There
would
be
other
from
a
rights
protection
program,
point
of
view,
which
is
why
it's
worded
that
way
there
may
be
other
safety
and
security
concerns
about
lots
of
people
performing
on
the
streets
that
other
authorities
or
stakeholders
might
have
an
interest
and
and
making
sure
it
doesn't
get
out
of
hand
or
or
unsafe
in
any
way,
given
the
traffic
flows
of
people
but
from
a
rights
protection
point
of
view,
and
from
your
first
point
of
view,
we
very
much
hope
that
there's
lots
of
busking
to
increase
the
atmosphere.
Okay,.
A
A
You
know
move
on
to
our
second
panel
of
witness
on
witnesses
on
the
year
for
European
Championship
Scotland
bill
and
I
would
like
to
welcome
Ben
Macpherson
Minister
for
Europe
migration
and
international
development
and
from
the
Scottish
Government's
bill
team.
We
have
Lucy
Carmichael
the
bill
team
leader
and
Kirsten
Simoni
Lefevre,
the
principle
legal
officer
with
the
Scottish
Government
and
I'd
like
to
invite
the
minister
to
make
a
brief
opening
statement.
Thank
You
minister
good.
O
Morning,
committee
I'm
very
pleased
to
be
here
to
talk
about
the
provisions
of
the
UEFA
European
Championship
Scotland
bill
and
how
the
Scottish
Government
proposes
to
use
the
powers
contained
the
net
subject
to
parliamentary
approval.
We
do
so,
of
course,
in
the
context
of
Glasgow's
place
among
the
world's
top
sporting
destinations
being
confirmed
when
it
was
selected
alongside
the
likes
of
Rome
and
London
as
one
of
the
12
euro
2020
host
cities.
O
We
are
delighted
to
be
involved
in
the
60th
anniversary
of
the
event,
and
we
expect
the
economic
benefits
to
be
significant
and,
just
as
importantly,
we
expect
that
the
buzz
and
memories
it
will
create
will
be
on
par
with
other
famous
football
matches
that
have
taken
place
in
Glasgow
hosting.
These
events
often
involves
meeting
certain
requirements
of
the
rates
holder,
and
the
bill
will
help
ensure
successful
delivery
of
Euro
2020
by
putting
in
place
protections
for
commercial
rates
as
appropriate
and
proportionate
in
relation
to
ticket
touting
street
trading
and
advertising.
O
The
provisions
in
the
bill
to
ban
ticket
tithing
have
been
broadly
supported
since
they
were
announced
delivering
this,
along
with
the
provisions
on
advertising
and
street
trading.
Will
reinforce
Scotland's
reputation
as
a
gold
standard
host
of
major
events,
but
it's
important
that
these
restrictions
are
proportionate,
and
so
we
are
proposing
that
there
are
a
number
of
exceptions
to
the
trading
and
advertising
offences.
O
I
know
that
charity
collections
and
busking
were
raised
during
the
evidence
sessions
last
week
and
earlier
this
morning
and
I'm
pleased
to
confirm
that
we
will
propose
that
both
of
these
activities
are
exemptions,
exceptions
to
the
trading
offence
in
the
regulations
and
my
officials
provided
further
information
on
proposed
exceptions
to
the
advertising
offense
earlier
this
week.
This
includes
issues
which
I
understand
are
important
for
advertising.
Stakeholders,
such
as
permitting
advertising
on
buses
and
taxis
that
enter
the
event
zones.
O
I
expect
to
share
illustrative
regulations
with
the
committee
very
soon
that
will
set
out
further
details
on
how
the
Scottish
Government
expects
to
use
its
powers
in
the
bill,
which
I
hope
will
heed.
Your
consideration.
I'm
grateful
for
the
points
raised
by
the
committee
members
last
week
and
this
morning
in
evidence,
sessions
and
I
trust
that
the
Scottish
Government's
letter
of
Monday
October,
the
7th,
clarifies
the
position
and
perhaps
alleviates
concerns
on
a
number
of
matters.
O
For
example,
the
Scottish
Government
is
proposing
that
all
enforcement
officers,
our
local
authority
members
of
staff,
and
we
would
be
happy
to
consider
whether
that
could
be
included
on
the
face
of
the
bill.
Developing
a
bill
is,
of
course,
a
process
and
I'm
very
happy
to
listen
to
suggestions
on
areas
where
the
bill
might
be
improved
through
amendments.
In
conclusion,
in
light
of
the
expediate
timescale,
I
also
want
to
see
how
grateful
I
am
to
the
committee
for
undertaking
consideration
of
the
bill
so
swiftly.
O
I
also
want
to
provide
reassurance
that
the
Scottish
government,
along
with
Glasgow
City
Council,
intends
to
continue
to
publicize
the
restrictions
on
advertising
street
trading
and
ticket
toting
in
the
run-up
to
the
event
to
raise
awareness
among
businesses
and
the
public
and
I
look
forward
to
providing
more
information
today
on
both
the
rationale
for
the
bill
and
heiwa
is
expected
to
operate
in
practice.
Thank
you
can
be
I.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
mr.
Macpherson
and
can
I
start
by
asking
you.
You
heard
the
first
session
where
we
spoke
to
UEFA
and
Glasgow
City
Council,
and
indeed
the
Scottish
Football
Association
about
when
it
was
understood.
The
primary
legislation
might
be
necessary
in
Scotland's,
because
obviously
primary
legislation
hasn't
been
brought
forward
in
every
country.
That's
hosting
these
games
and
you
you.
A
If
I
said
it
was
made
clear
in
the
bid
and
back
in
2014,
the
SFA
said
that
they
flag
the
OP
back
in
2014
and,
of
course,
Glasgow
City
Council
were
very
aware
of
these
matters
because
they
had
pre
hosted
the
Commonwealth
Games.
So
I
guess.
My
question
is
why
it's
taken
so
long
for
this
primary
legislation
to
be
introduced,
Parliament
with
so
little
notice
when
it
was
known
back
in
2014,
he.
O
Could
be
there,
as
was
alluded
to
this
morning
by
by
other
witnesses,
before
April
2010,
the
Scottish
governance
and
its
partners
were
working
to
establish
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
meet
ufs
requirements
without
primary
legislation,
and
so
using
and
relying
on
existing
legislation
and
being
conscious
of
the
pressures
on
parliamentary
time.
There
was
an
aspiration
to
explore
all
possible
angles
and
avenues
that
could
be
used
to
utilize
existing
legislation.
O
That
became
clear
in
April,
and
this
was
indeed
demonstrated
in
correspondence
by
letter
on
the
1st
of
April,
from
UEFA
to
the
SFA
and
and
other
parties
that
primary
legislation
was
going
to
be
the
most
effective
and
most
robust
way
in
order
to
protect
rights
and
also
to
protect
people
from
tickets.
Outing.
And
at
that
point,
once
that
crystallised
position,
it
was
clear
the
Scottish
government
moved
swiftly
in
order
to
bring
forward
the
supremely
legislation.
Yes,.
A
You're
certainly
move
swiftly
and,
of
course,
I
am
aware
that
you
weren't
in
this
post
M
in
2014
and
you
you
have
actually
quite
recently
come
into
this
post.
So
in
these
decisions
were
not
your
decisions,
but
it
does
seem
to
have
been
a
bit
little
bit
late
at
the
D.
The
decision
was
taken
and
it's
funded
I
mean
in
in
terms
of
the
ticket
tasting
offense.
In
particular,
it
does
seem
that
that
is
a
that
there
is
a
gap
in
Scots
law
in
terms
of
them.
A
You
know
modern
entertainment
that
we,
we
don't
seem
to
be
able
to
cover
ticket
toting
and
it
doesn't
seem.
It
doesn't
seem
practical
that
we
should
have
to
have
special
pieces
of
legislation.
Every
to
a
major
international
event
comes.
Do
you
think?
Do
you
think
it's
something
we
need
to
improve
in
terms
of
the
law?
Well,.
O
In
terms
of
currently,
the
the
legislation
for
ticket
toting
that
that
would
be
applicable
would
be
section
55
of
the
Civic
government
Scotland
Act
1982,
however,
that
wouldn't
cover
on
lane
aspects
of
ticket
toting,
but
also
there's,
of
course,
the
balance
between
devolved
and
reserved
powers.
What
will
be
I
think
useful
for
the
benefit
of
the
common
goods.
After
providing
this,
this
legislation
is
approved
by
Parliament
and
in
due
course,
once
the
the
games
are
once
the
the
tournament
championships
have
have
passed.
We
of
course,
will
examine
the
success
of
this
legislation.
O
I
think
that
would
give
a
good
basis
for
wider
consideration
around
the
issues
of
ticket
targeting
and
whether
going
forward
they
would.
There
would
be
a
merit
in
considering
a
potential
framework
bill
on
these
issues,
but
I
think
at
the
moment.
We
need
to
mean
to
get
this
legislation
right
and
see
it
work
in
practice
and
and
consider
the
matters
thereafter.
So
the.
A
Committee
is
certainly
working
very
hard
to
do
that
within
the
timetable
and
I
welcome
the
the
points
that
you
have
made
about
about.
Airbus,
King
and
charitable
activity
and
I
noticed
that
you
know
the
submission
that
the
Scottish
Government
has
made.
The
letters
from
the
Scottish
government
has
made
about
the
types
of
regulations
and
the
exempt
exceptions
they
expect
to
be
putting
into
force
through
regulations.
Busking
is
not
mentioned.
A
Can
you
give
us
a
categorical
and
assurance
that
it
will
be
mentioned
and
the
regulations,
because
clearly,
the
alternative
is
to
amend
the
bill
to
take
out
section
six
paragraph
to
the
which
share
prohibits
providing
public
entertainment,
fergie
no
reward
so
clearly,
if
the.
If,
if
busking
wasn't
mentioned
in
the
regulations
and
the
bill
would
need
to
be
amended.
O
D
Thank
you
convener,
and
it's
interesting
Minister
that
you
say
following
this
piece
of
legislation.
There
will
be
a
sort
of
look
to
see
how
effective
it
was
because
it
doesn't
seem
like
that
happened
was
the
Commonwealth
Games
legislation
to
any
great
degree.
There
seems
to
be
no
be
an
advance
of
this
legislation,
quite
a
lot
of
work
to
try
and
understand
how
the
Commonwealth
Games
legislation
how
effective
it
was.
D
Otherwise
there
didn't
seem
to
be
there's
lots
of
anecdotal
evidence,
but
there
wasn't
a
thorough
look
at
how
did
this
legislation
operty
and
could
we
good
old,
former
or
continuous
something
in
legislation
to
tackle
particular
the
issue
of
ticket
toting?
Now,
do
you
understand
this?
Was
there
Perez
involved
there
so
there's
some
limitations
or
name
on
what
we
can
do?
D
We
received
a
letter
this
week
and
following
the
evidence
we
had
a
couple
weeks
ago
around
the
offenses,
so
they're
aware
for
ticket
totin
offenses
that
went
to
the
that
were
reported
to
the
Cloudant
office
and
in
the
letter
it
says
the
scottish
government
will
discuss
these
cases
with
a
crown
office
to
see
if
it
can
share
any
for
that
information.
That
might
help
to
inform
development
of
the
bail
and
associated
regulations.
I
won't
be
able
to
help
develop
the
bail
I.
Don't
imagine
because
we
don't
have
the
time
skills
to
enable
that.
D
O
Of
course,
we
welcome
the
submission
of
evidence
by
the
Cronin
pocket.
A
fiscal
service
and
also
I
would
meet
reference
to
the
letter
from
officials.
Claire
find
that
position
on
the
the
four
instances
where
the
ticket
13
offense
was
used
with
regard
to
the
2014
legislation
and
a
we
will.
Officials
are
now
engaging
in
a
process
of
further
dialogue
in
correspondence
with
the
current
Procurator
Fiscal
service
to
understand
how
those
worked
in
practice
in
order
to
inform
our
further
consideration
of
the
bill
as
we
enter
a
the
other.
O
D
O
2014
legislation
as
the
gold
standard
and,
of
course
the
2014
legislation,
was
thoroughly
examined
by
Parliament
and
also
a
was
subject
to
consultation
before
hand.
I
would
say
that
the
legislation
before
us
today
at
this
juncture
is
enhanced
from
the
2014
gold
standard,
with
particular
reference
to
section
9,
where
we
are,
for
example,
putting
in
alternative
arrangements
where
existing
trading
is
banned
during
the
championship.
In
order
to
put
that
a
obligation
on
the
council
that
they
must
find,
it
must
offer
alternative
trading
arrangements
for
Street
traders,
for
example.
O
E
I've
got
to
meet
two
issues,
but
can
I
start,
firstly
with
ticket
outing
and
can
I
just
first
of
all,
say
I'm,
very
pleased
to
hear
that
you've
listened
to
the
evidence
so
far
other
issues
and
been
willing
to
confirm
that
you're
going
to
make
specific
changes
in
regulations
such
that's
great,
but
I'd
like
to
focus
on
ticket
outing.
We
all
want
to
see
ticket
counting
gone,
and
this
is
a
useful
means
of
doing
this
in
the
bill.
E
But
I
have
to
say
that
subsection
4
of
section
2,
which
just
immediately
stuck
out
at
me
when
I
read
it,
was
that
the
tailing
offense
does
not
apply
in
relation
to
accident
by
UEFA.
When
we
asked
you
wafer,
you
may
have
heard
it
this
morning.
You
ever
were
clear
that
they,
they
don't
engage
in
ticket
doubting
and
they
have
aim-
is
to
sell
the
tickets
at
face
value,
whether
there's
a
service
charge
as
well.
That's
part
of
the
bill
I
understand
that,
but
but
they
are
not
involved
in
in
ticket
counting.
E
What's
concerning
them
is
section
2,
subsection,
2
B,
which
says
with
a
view
to
making
a
profit,
and
they
thought
well
hang
on
if
we
are,
but
you
Ava
makes
a
profit,
that's
what
it's
about,
therefore
they're.
They
wanted
that
in
that's
the
impression
of
giving
us,
and
so
when
I
put
it
to
him
that
if
that
was
removed
with
a
view
to
making
a
profit
and
we
concentrated
solely
on
the
face
value
of
the
ticket,
they
seem
to
be
happy
with
that.
And
what's
the
minister's
view
about
that,
thank.
O
You
for
further
and
for
the
engagement
on
these
as
these
sections
of
the
bill.
I,
think
my
understanding
of
viewing
nuevas
evidence
this
morning
and
also
their
written
submission,
was
that
the
necessity
for
the
continued
inclusion
of
two
to
be
is
in
order
to
cover
the
fact
that
UEFA
will
make
profit
from
ticket
sales
and
the
reason
for
its
inclusion.
O
E
B
says
the
amount
payable
for
any
other
goods
or
services
which
are
to
be
requires
the
condition
of
sales
we've
already
got
that
covered,
that's
already
covered.
So
what
what
the
stands
out
and
I
think
stand
out
to
any
ordinary
person
is
the
look
of
this
which
says
we
want
to
ban
ticket
outing,
but
we're
not
going
to
ban
you
if
a
ticket,
toting
and
UEFA
said
well,
we
don't
want
a
ticket
out,
so
why
is
it
in
the
bill?
E
E
E
O
E
Genuinely
not
following
this
because
ticket
tempting
as
explained
here
is
about
and
as
as
is
generally
understood
as
being
the
sale
of
a
ticket
above
its
face
value.
Of
course
you
wear
for
a
making
profit.
That's
what
they're
here
to
do.
Of
course
they
are.
Everybody
accepts
that
and
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
there's
a
known
as
far
as
I
can
see
an
unnecessary
element
here
in
in,
for
which
says
you
were
allowing
the
kidding
tick,
toting
offense
doesn't
apply
to
UEFA,
well,
I.
Think
people
might
think
that
is
rather
odd
to.
E
O
Yes,
but
any
reselling
of
a
ticket
say,
for
example,
through
you
if,
as
so
UFO
as
its
detailed
and
their
evidence,
intends
to
set
up
provision
in
order
for
people
to
resell
tickets
at
face
value
face
value.
So,
but
do
they
not
take
it
totally,
but
there
is
still
be
a
profit
position
involved
in
that
we.
O
I
think
actually,
the
the
position
is
clear
and
we're.
We
agree
on
the
same
point:
it's
if
there's
a
position
around.
If
you
and
the
committee
don't
feel
that
the
legislation
is
clear,
then
we'll
certainly
take
away
that
and
consider
it
with
regard
to
stage
two
but
I
think
we're
both
clear
on
the
position
that
one
the
UFO
does
not
seek
to
to
take.
O
E
E
So
the
evidence
from
comes
down
the
Police
Federation
was
they
would
like
to
see
that
remain,
but
including
it.
In
addition,
if
that's
the
case,
then
a
police
officer
needs
to
be
present.
A
police
constable
needs
to
be
a
person.
That's
the
supplement,
three
evidence
from
the
Police
Federation
or
any
any
comment
on
that.
O
Thank
you
for
that
question.
If
I
may
just
to
address
a
the
enforcement
powers
as
a
whole
with
an
answer
to
that
question,
because
I
think
there
are
some
important
points
that
need
to
be
emphasized
and
clarified.
There
have
been
a
born
out
from
the
the
evidence
taken
thus
far
as
necessary
to
clarify
it's
important
to
emphasize
that
powers.
O
The
cherry
pricker,
a
cherry
picker
example
was
was
was
given
in
the
last
evidence
session.
So
I
would
just
ask
him
it
II
to
to
be
clear
that
17,
18
and
19
are
in
instances
when
permission
has
been
allowed
by
the
proprietor
and
that
changes
the
nature
of
the
consideration.
It
says
in
from
annual
section.
E
19
19
says
an
enforcement
officer
may
without
warrant
without
warrant
and
to
any
place
any
place
and
may
search
any
place.
Any
vehicle
vessel
container
other
thing
that
place
and
there's
an
exception
for
entering
houses
where
the
police
has
to
become
needed.
But
that's
that's,
that's
a
very
wide
power,
so
the
the
the
the.
O
O
E
O
We
can
we
can
take
a
if
that
implicit
sense
of
permission
is
it's
something
that
quite
I
appreciate
the
the
committee
has
a
in
engaged
on
issues
surrounding
that
within
the
evidence
that's
been
taken
so
far,
so
we
we
can
certainly
take
that
away
in
terms
of
a
further
consideration
towards
stage
two,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
it
is
an
implicit
point
within
17,
18
and
19.
Well,.
E
My
prior
has
to
get
my
final
point.
My
final
question
I
know
the
time.
Time
is
short,
but
my
final
point
is
that
is
the
whole
point
in
the
intention:
the
good
intentions
that
the
government
has
and
doing
this
we
all
want
to
achieve
the
right
aim
here.
Our
job
is
to
look
at
the
letter
of
the
law
that
we're
putting
in
here
the
letter,
not
not
the
intention
behind
it.
E
Unless
there
are
regulations
coming
out
and
some
areas
which
there
are,
but
we
are
job,
is
to
look
at
this
and
section
19
is
quite
clear:
they
have,
they
have
very
huge
powers
and
the
evidence
that
is
given
to
us.
The
enforcement
officers
will
have
huge
powers
equivalent
to
a
police
officer,
and
there
are
well
that's
the
evidence
that's
been
given
to
us.
The
government
has
a
particular
view.
E
Hopefully
nothing
will
go
wrong
and
everything
will
be
fine,
but
our
job
is
to
make
sure
that
you
know
all
the
T's
are
crossed
and
the
I's
are
dotted
and
I
think
this
is
a
problem
and
I
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
you're
going
to
have
a
look
at
this,
because
I
would
hope
that
you
bring
amendments
for
what
it
states
to
you.
So
we
don't
have
to
as.
O
I
said
I
think
the
on
with
the
implicit
possession
that
permission
would
be
granted
by
the
proprietor
for
17,
18
and
18.
Then
this
is
the
the
the
wording
in
19.
1
is
just
to
clarify
the
the
position
of
Enforcement
Officers,
once
Anna
premises,
having
been
given
permission
by
the
proprietor
to
enter.
A
F
The
enforcement
officers
would
seek
to
support
them
in
their
activities
when
there's,
obviously
no
undertaking
that
those
individuals
are
going
to
be
trained.
So
unless
it's
going
to
be
done
on
very
short
notice
and
you
wouldn't
train
the
Cherry
Thakur
offer
the
intricacies
of
the
spell
and
what
an
enforcement
officer
should
do
because
they're,
not
enforcement
officer
under
my
reading
of
17.4,
they
potentially
have
the
protections
of
vest
legislation
extended
today,
I
mean
their
activities,
as
requested
by
the
enforcement
officer.
O
This
is
in
order
to
such
individuals
that
were
accompanying
an
enforcement
officer
in
an
instance
would
be
those
that
the
enforcement
officer
believed
were
reasonably
required
for
the
purposes
of
taking
action.
So
that
would
be
a
number
of
examples
were
given
in
the
previous
session.
So
they
are
not
enforcement
officers.
There
accompany
enforcement
officers
and
do
we'd
not
have
the
same
status
under
this
legislation.
Right.
F
I'm
still
concerned
about
the
legislation
as
written.
What
effect
that
would
give
him
what
defense
that
would
allow
those
individuals
to
make
if
it
came
to
and
but
to
move
it
on
slightly
and
under
under
the
cessation.
The
only
the
test
for
enforcement
officers
for
your
activity,
short
of
that
that
requires
a
warrant
etc,
and
the
enforcement
officer
is
essentially
asked
to
make
a
personal
judgment
about
what
would
be
an
appropriate
course
of
action.
F
What
would
happen
if
an
enforcement
officer
and
a
police
officer
took
a
contrary
point
of
contry
points
of
view
on
the
appropriate
course
of
action
in
an
individual
situation
related
to
the
powers
that
they
would
so
not
related
to
pairs
of
arrests,
etc?
That
clearly
live
the
police
officer,
but
in
relation
to
search,
seizure,
etc.
If
an
enforcement
officer
and
a
police
officer
came
to
contrary
points
of
view
in
the
one
situation
who
wins
out
there
in.
O
So
the
the
position
is
that
enforcement
officers
with
in
those
instances
where
a
use
of
force
was
required
or
entry
into
residential
house
was
required
and
near
judgement
after
investigation.
They
would
then
be
engaging
with
police
Scotland
for
the
necessary
assistance,
as
articulated
in
the
legislation.
So
I
don't
see
a
position
where
there
would
be
a
conflict
of
interest
between
what
the
police
Scotland
would
be
will
be
intending
to
do
in
an
unfortunate
I
would
perhaps
an
example
would
help
me
understand
your
yeah.
F
If
we
were
to
take
the
searching
beyond
the
use
of
force
so
that
one
concern
it's
been
given
is
that
the
use
of
a
locksmith
to
gain
entry
would
not
be
considered
use
of
force
and
if
you're,
in
the
situation,
where
enforcement
officers
decided
that
they
need
to
gain
entry
to
premises
that
they
require
the
assistance
of
a
locksmith
to
gain
entry
to
the
premises.
But
police
officer
considers
that
that
is
disproportionate
and
entry
to
those
premises
is
not
required.
Who
wins
out.
O
F
F
A
police
officer
who
was
present,
for
example,
because
they
were
called
by
the
individual
who's,
walked
premises.
The
enforcement
officers
to
say
the
good
news
or
walks
must
again
if
an
individual
is
in
dispute
with
an
enforcement
officer,
if
they
summon
a
police
officer,
because
they
believe
the
enforcement
officer
intends
to
take
action
that
is
disproportionate
or
unacceptable.
Are
you
saying
that
the
enforcement
officer
can
still
undertake
that
action,
even
if
the
police
officer
agrees,
that
their
action
is
disproportionate,
unnecessary,
unrequired,
etc?
No.
F
O
P
F
Just
I'll
finish
them
with
just
the
the
wider
point.
Uefa
confirmed
this
morning
that
they
don't
require.
They
don't
made
requirements
of
any
host
country
to
the
level
of
specificity
of
exactly
what
enforcement
powers.
They
would
want
enforcement
officers
to
have
so
that
latest
the
wider
question
of
why,
as
required
together
enforcement
officers,
these
particular
powers
around
search,
seizure,
destruction,
etc,
and
the
remaining
question
I've
got
there.
Minister
is
why,
in
the
Scottish
Government's
view,
is
it
necessary
to
give
these
powers
to
enforcement
officers
and
not
simply
leave
them
with
the
police?
O
It's
more
it's
more
effective
use
of
resources
again
with
the
implicit
permission
that's
required,
with
17
18
and
19
for
enforcement
officers
to
undertake
that
work
enforcement
officers
also,
as
was
articulated
this
morning,
have
the
experience
and
will
have
the
training
in
this
to
undertake
it
very
effectively
and
have
done
in
previous
tournaments.
But
what's
also
the
the
the
the
previous
events
rather,
but
what's
also
a
clear
is
the
in
terms
of
use
of
force
and
entry
to
residential
property?
A
To
come,
I
would
just
like
to
just
flag
up
police,
the
police
Federation's
latest
letter
to
the
committee,
where,
where
they
basically
see
that
the
execution
of
the
warrant
should
lie
with
the
police
and
that
they
are
concerned
with
the
question
of
primacy
and
the
impression
that
the
constable
and
would
be
acting
under
the
direction
of
an
enforcement
officer,
which
they
obviously
disagree
with,
they
say
the
constable
should
only
act
in
support
of
the
warrant.
And
are
you
seeing
that
the
wrong.
O
The
the
intention
of
the
legislation
in
terms
of
the
enforcement
officers
possession
within
that
is
because
the
enforcement
officer
would
have
generally
and
and
and
the
majority
of
cases,
been
the
individual
who's
undertaking
the
investigation
and
the
examination
of
whether
breach
has
taken
place.
And
for
those
reasons,
it's
logical
that
the
enforcement
officer
would
be
the
one
engaging
and
primarily
in
the
investigation.
But
quite
rightly
there
are
the
safeguards
in
20
and
21
in
particular
that
I
their
warrants
would
have
to
be
obtained
as
appropriate
or
police
officers.
We'd
have
to
accompany
as
appropriate
right.
E
A
specific
one
I
can
give
an
example
that
we
were
struggling
before
about
this
ignoring
houses,
because
there
are
protections
and
ignoring
force,
because
there
are
protections
and
19
says
quite
specifically.
Well,
first
of
all,
a
police
officer
needs
a
warrant
to
enter
premises
at
the
moment
in
law.
A
police
officer
needs
a
warrant
signed
by
a
sheriff
or
someone
else
that
they
can
enter
a
property.
19
says
an
enforcement
officer
may
without
a
warrant,
enter
any
place
if
they
believe
an
offense
has
been
committed.
It's
different.
E
If
a
policeman
says
it's
about
to
be
committed,
always
being
committed,
they
can
enter,
but
not
if
it
has
been
so.
This
gives
extra
powers
to
an
enforcement
officer
the
well.
The
reason
is
the
example
that
was
given
was
of
a
locksmith
and
not
using
force
to
a
gain
entry.
So
we'll
have
a
situation
where
you're
a
policeman
arrives.
The
enforcement
officer
arrives,
the
enforcement
officers
know
this
gives
me
the
power
to
enter
this
premises,
which
isn't
a
house
these
premises
without
a
warrant.
E
E
E
D
O
O
O
Force
it's
implicit
between
seventeen
eighteen,
nineteen
that
permission
is
granted
in
those
instances
because
when,
when
permission
isn't
granted,
we
would
only
create
the
occurrence
where
use
of
force
was
needed
and
that's
why
use
of
when
use
of
force
is
required.
Ie.
When
there's
not
permission,
then
section
20
is
applicable.
So
you.
H
A
O
O
Between
the
1st
and
the
30th
of
June
in
terms
of
Hampton
Park,
because
that
will
be
the
requirement
in
terms
of
the
the
the
games
that
are
undertaken
there
and
the
a
the
other
zones.
The
george
squares
awareness
from
the
10th
of
june
to
the
12th
of
July,
and
because
of
the
necessity
for
that
zone
to
be
part
of
the
wider
public
enjoyment
of
the
tournament,
both
visiting
fans
and
as
people
who
want
to
engage
in
and
watching
a
spectacle
in
a
public
space
from
from
Scotland
errs
as
well.
O
O
O
And
we've
already
had
been
engaging
in
that
both
Scottish
government
and
and
other
partners.
So
we've
held
two
drop-in
sessions
in
Glasgow,
inviting
Street
traders,
businesses,
media
owners
and
the
quality
groups
to
attend,
and
the
Federation
of
small
businesses,
Glasgow
Chamber
of
Commerce,
the
Scottish
Retail
Consortium
and
glasgow
hoteles
association.
O
We're
all
also
invited
and
telephone
calls
have
taken
place
with
Street
traders
and
other
businesses
who
could
not
attend
in
person,
and
we
have
been
clear
that
these
proposals
are
in
draft
and
subject
to
parliamentary
approval,
so
are
looking
to
take
feedback
on
the
proposals
from
businesses,
because
we
see
this
and
I
think
we
should
all
see
this
as
a
hugely
beneficial
event.
That's
coming
to
Glasgow.
A
K
Uk
Parliament
is
considering
legislation
now
for
the
Commonwealth
Games
in
2022.
Do
you
think
it
acceptable
that
eight
months
before
this
event
is
due
to
take
place?
We
are
having
to
rush
through
legislation,
especially
when
it
seems
that
it
was
always
likely,
or
at
least
to
height.
There
was
a
high
possibility
that
primary
legislation
was
needed.
I.
O
Share
the
position
that,
ideally,
we
would
have
had
more
time
to
consider
this
legislation
and
I
think
that
we
would
have
been
such
early
err.
Consideration
would
have
been
welcomed
by
all
parties.
However,
it
was
done
with
the
best
intentions
of
examining
the
current
legislation
that
we
have
and
seeking
to
maximise
good
use
of
parliamentary
time.
O
I
think
it's
also
important
to
emphasize
that
the
the
fact
that
we
have
based
this
legislation
before
us
today
on
the
gold
standard
of
what
was
passed
in
2014
is
a
very
strong
possession
in
which
to
examine
legislation
that
was
both
effective
and
thoroughly
scrutinized
at
the
time
and
and
actually
we're
enhancing
that
legislation
together
through
this
process.
In
order
to
have
the
strongest
and
most
effective
legislation
in
place
for
the
delivery
of
this
important
and
highly
beneficial
event
for
Scotland
can.
K
I
get
a
commitment
from
you
that
going
forward.
Obviously,
in
the
future,
we
all
want
Scotland
to
host
big
sporting
events,
but
that
it
is
not
really
a
very
acceptable
way
forward
to
be
dealing
with
legislation,
ad
hoc
and
at
short
notice,
and
that
the
government
gives
consideration
whether
that's
closing
of
loopholes
in
touting
law
that
the
convener
spoke
about
earlier,
but
generally
in
how
we
approach
and
legislate
for
major
sporting
events.
Will
you
give
a
commitment
today
that
you
would
consider
that
in
the
future
we.
O
Will
certainly
evaluate
this
bill
and
due
course,
and
before
any
consideration
of
whether
a
future
events
framework
bill
might
be
appropriate
and
we
would
expect
to
undertake
careful
and
carefully
consider
the
benefits
of
such
a
framework
bill
in
future,
but
I
think
if
we
together
deliver
successful
legislation
here,
just
like
what
happened
in
2014
for
the
Commonwealth
Games,
then
that
would
provide
a
strong
basis
of
analysis
for
consideration
around
the
potential
frameworks
bill
for
major
events
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
M
You
just
also
the
the
chap
chap
period
is
from
the
1st
of
June
to
the
12th
of
July,
but
the
bill
I
saw
the
act
when
it's
passed
will
automatically
come
off
the
statute
book
on
the
31st
of
the
same
bot,
2020
so
from
the
12th
of
July
to
the
end
of
December.
That's
a
fairly
long
period
of
time
for
potential.
Some
unintended
consequences
has
been
any
consideration
given
to
reducing
that
period
of
time.
Well,.
O
Of
course,
the
offenses
are
connected
to
the
championship
period
rather
than
the
termination
of
the
legislation.
However,
the
the
cessation
date
of
the
31st
of
December
of
this
of
2020
was
decided
upon
just
for
because
of
the
nature
of
the
the
annual
your
calendar
and,
however,
certainly
we
can
consider
whether
would
be
M
if
it's
a
if
it's
a
pressing
point
for
the
committee,
certainly
open-minded
to
consideration
of
cessation
an
earlier
dfff.
That's
that's
a
strong
position.
That
committee
takes
thank.
M
Notwithstanding,
said,
mister
cameras
question
regarding
it
at
some
type
of
framework
legislation,
but
an
after
this
event
is
it's
over
and
I.
Think
as
we
all
expect
and
anticipate
are
hugely
successful
event
for
Scotland
to
promote
know
that
the
country
could
you
know
even
a
short
theorem
that
was
sort
of
an
immediate
theorem.
A
piece
of
work
could
be
undertaken
in
terms
of
just
updating
the
ticket
touting
legislation
to
bring
that
and
to
up
to
date
so
that
that
potentially
could
be
removed
from
any
type
of
ambiguity
and
any
any
concerns
for
future
major
events.
O
Of
course,
one
of
the
challenges
our
own-
that
is,
the
because
of
the
the
nature
of
reserved
and
evolve
pers
and
and
considerations
between
the
two
with
regard
to
this
matter
as
I've
come
already
today
there,
there
is
a
an
enthusiasm
for
undertaking
consideration
of
the
effectiveness
of
this
legislation
with
regard
to
potentially
a
major
events,
framework
bill
and
I
think
it
would
I
wouldn't
want
to
presuppose
that
that
consideration
I
think
we
we
deliver
this
legislation
together.
We
make
this
event
a
success.
We
reflect
on
that.
O
G
All
want
the
event
to
be
a
success.
Minister
you
alluded
to
that.
We
wanted
the
fans
to
enjoy
it.
We
want
the
public
to
the
traders,
everyone
to
be
part
and
parcel
of
that
process,
and
all
the
it
will
showcase
us
as
a
as
a
country
and
showcase
the
locations
and
all
the
rest.
But
there
is
knock-on
effects
for
individuals
and
organizations
that
are
within
some
of
these
dunes
and
the
advertising.
O
Important
question
I
refer
members
to
annex
a
from
my
the
letter
of
the
7th
of
October
from
the
Scottish
Government,
and
the
first
two
bullet
points.
For
example,
state
that
distributing
are
providing
current
newspapers
will
be
exempt
in
the
regulations
advertisements
on
or
in
moving
vehicles,
for
example,
buses,
vans
and
trucks,
but
would
not
apply
to
a
vehicles
who,
whose
uses
primarily
display
adverse.
O
So
we
are
seeking
to
be
as
practicable
as
possible
in
order
to
make
sure
that
exemptions
are
reasonable
and
also
we
are
considering
and
what
what
might
be
required
in
regulations
to
dis
apply
the
offence
for
any
existing
commercial
arrangements
that
have
been
entered
into
before
the
advertising
offence
is
created.
But
it's
all
about
how
do
we
balance
in
terms
of
reasonableness
for
suitable
exemptions,
but
also
make
sure
that
I,
quite
understandably,
the
the
global
partners
that
you
FR
are
engaged
in
are
are
are
protected,
given
the
significant
and
resource
that
they
contribute
to
this?
G
I
think
it's
right
that
they
are
protected
in
this
process
because
they
have
they
have
a
bigger
say
in
the
drop
and
in
the
situation.
So
I
asked
the
other
one
in
the
roster
ala
panel
about
communication,
how
that
was
going
to
be
communicated,
how
you're
going
to
make
sure
that
there
was
an
engagement
with
organizations
and
individuals
to
make
sure
that
they
knew
what
the
parameters
are
and
that
they've
fallen
to
those
parameters
and
they
don't
by
mistake
or
by
just
situation,
find
themselves
at
the
wrong
side
of
it.
Absolutely.
O
We're
also
trying
to
be
proactive
in
this
and
again
practicable
by
encouraging
UEFA
and
other
other
partners
to
correspond
with
businesses,
so
that,
when
consideration
around
advertising
space
in
the
events,
Owens's
is
being
contracted,
that
there
is
a
sense
of
reasonableness
and
productivity
towards
satisfying
both
the
needs
of
the
the
global
partners
for
you.if,
and
also
the
the
ambition
for
local
organisations
and
businesses
to
sell
their
advertising
space.
So
we
are
trying
to
do
that.
What's
also
true
is
that
the
bill
says
that
Glasgow
must
publish
guidance
on
on
Street
trading
and
advertising
restrictions.
F
What
what
are
the
limitations
on
enforcement
officers
in
their
ability
if
they
are
able
to
search
a
premises?
And
there
is,
for
example,
a
laptop
or
a
table
over
there,
maybe
doesn't
have
a
password
or
a
particular
strong
password
on
it.
What
what
are
the
restrictions
on
their
ability
to
search
an
electronic
device.
O
My
understanding
is
the
consideration
of
the
ability
to
search
electronic
devices
is
covered
in
other
legislation
but
say,
and
that
this
refers
to
a
premises
again,
remembering
that
section
19
is
implicit
on
permission
and
I.
Think
it's
important
to
keep
emphasizing
that
the
the
the
powers
that
are
contained
are
to
do
with
physical
premises
and
are
not,
but.
F
O
That
that,
as
I
said,
it's
subject
to
permission,
so
only
if
the
the
proprietor
of
both
the
premises
and
the
laptop
decided
to
grant
the
enforcement
officer
entry
into
laptop.
But,
as
I
said
there
are
protections
on
I,
would
need
to
double-check
this
and
certainly
happy
to
follow
up
on
in
rating
on
this.
But
my
understanding
from
Emily
is
that
access
to
electronic
devices
is
also
covered
in
other
legislation,
but
we
can.
We
can
follow
up
on
that.
Do.
P
Indeed,
it
does
the
the
only
word
to
say
that
they
may
entered
any
place
and
search
any
place
and
any
vehicle
vessel
container
or
other
thing.
I
thought
please.
It
means
a
physical
search
of
something
which
could
be
a
taint,
or
you
know
some
kind
of
temporary
structure.
It's
not
really
meant
about
searching
within
electronic
device
resistor,
but
searching
a
police
and
the
bracketed
words
are
things
in
that
place.
That
can't
be
searched
as
a
please.
F
Right,
that's
the
I
mean
that's
absolutely
not
my
reading
of
19:1
and
so
I
think
the
clarity
cartas
was
required
on
the
wording
of
the
provision
in
91,
but
also
Minister.
If
you
could
writes
us
with
Wade
mentioned
about
the
requirements
that
contained
in
other
legislation
about
searching
electronic
devices
and
that
in
and
of
itself
would
be
useful,
but
clearly
we
knew
carroty
about
whether
19
what
19
1
actually
applies
to,
because
the
thing
at
that
place
is
I.
Think
to
me
an
incredibly
broad
term.
F
O
F
I
suppose
I
mean
we've
been
over,
that
a
number
of
times
this
morning
I.
There
certainly
concerned
from
members
of
the
committee
that
implicit
is
not
sufficient
and
that
something
on
the
face
of
their
socialization
is
probably
required,
but
yeah
if
we
could
get
quiet
around
19,
1
and
particular,
and
what
that
means
that'd
be
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
F
A
You
very
much
and
we're
just
about
to
finish
up
now,
unless
anyone
else
wants
to
come
in,
could
I
just
ask
I
believe
it
was
Lucy
the
last
week
who
said
that
you
expected
to
have
their
illustrative
regulations
with
the
committee
before
no
stage
one
report.
Can
you
just
confirm
that
that
is
the
case?
Yes,
yes,.