Scottish Parliament, 11 November 2025

130 contributions from 30 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our leader today is the Rev Dr Robin Hill, Church of Scotland minister of Gladsmuir, linked with Longniddry.

The Rev Dr Robin Hill (Church of Scotland)

It is the afternoon of 11 November. This morning’s two-minute silence lies in the past, to remain dormant for another year. We still have our poppies. After all, it would be callous to bin them so soon after the event but, come tonight, bin them we will—-and why ever not? The calendar keeps turning and life moves on, as it always does, with the tartan of St Andrew’s day in the near future and then on to the red ribbon of world AIDS day at the start of the never-less-than-hectic month of December. We have done remembrance, so why not just let it go?

Well, here is why not. Across our world of stark division, voices are being raised in favour of private domestic self-interest over and against public international law. They are, in effect, suggesting that hubris, aggression and outright cruelty are necessary and acceptable elements of diplomacy in the 21st century. Those voices have got it wrong.

That is why, this evening, each one of us should take our poppy and fix it on to our computer screen, our bathroom mirror or any place at all where it cannot be ignored over the year to come. There, let our poppies serve each one of us, together, as year-long and year-round reminders of the violence and suffering that continue across this world of injustice and sorrow. It falls to the people of Scotland, as a peace-loving nation, to live justly and to live with courage as we strive for that which is right against that which is merely expedient.

Reminders are vital things, and we cannot afford to ignore our poppies when 12 November rolls around. Although “remembrance” is most definitely a noun, it is our duty to treat that word like the verb that we all need it to be. We do remembrance, and we must keep on doing remembrance for the sake of our humanity and our planet.

But what if we choose to forget? What then? Today, I find myself remembering my visit to the city of Berlin in March this year. I went on a casual stroll with my wife through the Brandenburg gate and on to the chic elegance of Unter den Linden. There, we chanced upon a poster bearing these simple but striking words:

“Auschwitz: not long ago; not far away”.

If, tonight, you remember anything, remember that.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-19646, on the suspension of standing orders. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees, for the purposes of consideration of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Point of Order

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you confirm that the matter relating to my topical question—the Scottish National Party’s transgender prisoner guidance and the subsequent legal action—can be spoken about freely by ministers, because section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows

“matters of general public interest”

to be discussed without fear of that being treated as contempt of court?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms White. That is a matter for Scottish ministers.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I was not expecting to have to come in on this point of order, but I think that Tess White and I would certainly appreciate having from the chair the ruling that the understanding of the Presiding Officer of this Parliament is that section 5 of the 1981 act means that ministers are freely able to give full and substantive answers on the issue. We all saw the clip last week in which the First Minister told journalists that he could not comment on the case because it is a live case. That is not a defence; indeed, ministers are able and encouraged to comment on this live case.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The extent of my role, Mr Ross, is covered by rule 7.5 of standing orders. I direct the member’s attention to that with regard to admissibility. That is the extent of my role in relation to the matter.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19647, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Tuesday 11 November 2025—

after

followed by Stage 1 Debate: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill

insert

followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill – UK Legislation

delete

4.15 pm Decision Time

and insert

4.30 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its justification is for pursuing legal action in relation to its policy on transgender prisoners, in light of the judgment in the case, For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers. (S6T-02747)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Presiding Officer, with the greatest of respect to you and all members in the chamber, as the question relates directly to live court proceedings, it is not appropriate for me or any member of the Scottish Government to comment.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In April, the United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Yet, as the months have passed, the Scottish Government has ignored that judgment and failed to direct its public bodies to adhere to it. Instead, it has dithered and delayed, and now sees fit to defend its policy that allows biologically male prisoners to be housed in women’s prisons. Does the cabinet secretary support single-sex spaces—yes or no?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As well as referring to my earlier remarks, I advise the member—and I am sure that she has heard this before—that every key area of Government that is, or might be, affected by the Supreme Court judgment is carrying out assessments across legislation, guidance and policies. One example thus far would be the action that the Government has taken on guidance around gender representation on public boards.

Under my responsibilities as justice secretary, the safety and wellbeing of all prisoners and staff are at the core of everything that I and the Scottish Prison Service do.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Scotland’s prison system is a shambles and it needs leadership from the cabinet secretary. While the Scottish National Party is preparing to let more criminals out early, because its soft-touch approach to justice means that our prison estate is buckling under the weight of a surging population, its prison guidelines leave vulnerable women and girls at serious risk. If those guidelines remain, I am extremely concerned about the spine-chilling risk of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case in which, under the Scottish National Party’s watch, a dangerous male criminal was put in a women’s prison.

My understanding is that the cabinet secretary can answer my question. Does she still agree with what she said on 28 November 2017, which was:

“Women should feel safe in every space they wish to inhabit—this is a matter of fundamental human rights.”

Does she stand by what she said—yes or no?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Of course I remain firmly of the view that every woman has the right not only to feel safe, but to be safe.

I advise members that, as of last night, the lock-up figure for our prison population was 8,441 prisoners, which hardly speaks to the soft-touch justice that the member mentioned.

With regard to the early emergency release scheme, as members well know, there are very stringent safeguards to ensure that those who have committed domestic violence or sexual offences are excluded from it.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to allow the member who lodged the question to complete her series of questions. However, in the cabinet secretary’s first response, Angela Constance said that she could not comment on the on-going case. Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 clearly allows the cabinet secretary to give full answers in the chamber today. Therefore, has the cabinet secretary misled Parliament? What action can we, as members, take to ensure that section 5 of the 1981 act is applied in the chamber? Given that ministers are freely able to answer those serious questions, I believe that the minister has misled Parliament by saying that she cannot do so.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Ross. It is a matter for the Scottish Government, as a party to the case, to consider the level of detail that it wishes to go into.

We turn to supplementaries. Pauline McNeill is joining us remotely.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

What safeguarding concerns do Scottish ministers have for transgender prisoners that would justify not implementing the Supreme Court judgment and going to court to defend the Scottish Prison Service’s unlawful policy, which contravenes the requirement for single-sex spaces in Scottish prisons? [ Interruption .] Can Scottish ministers, including the cabinet secretary, say today why the SPS would continue to deny female prisoners the right to serve their sentence with other women?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

If I have understood Ms McNeill correctly—I apologise if I have not, because there was some interruption in what I heard her say—I believe that she is asking me, ultimately, to lay out here the position that we will advance before the court. That is what I cannot do. The Scottish Government does not regard it as appropriate to engage in public comment in respect of live court proceedings.

I say with the greatest respect, Presiding Officer, that I know that people will have different views on the law. I appreciate that there has been public commentary on the matter in the course of the weekend, but I advise members that I do not take legal advice from people on social media.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

We have heard from the Government over many years that female prisoners are among the most vulnerable women in society. They are often victims of terrible crime and abuse and are very likely to have suffered domestic violence. Given that, why on earth does the Government see fit for them to be housed alongside male-bodied inmates, some of whom are convicted rapists?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Without commenting on live proceedings, I remind members of the evidence that was given to the Criminal Justice Committee some time ago with respect to the SPS trans policy, which states that no transgender woman with a history of violence against women and girls and who presents a risk of harm should be placed in the female estate.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I agree that there should be clarity on the transgender policy. We know that when the Prison Service gets it wrong, it can lead to tragic outcomes. I refer members to the case of Sarah Jane Riley, a transgender prisoner who was endlessly moved around the prison estate and then kept in solitary confinement for weeks on end. Sarah Jane took her own life in custody, and the fatal accident inquiry report on that case stated that she was “unlawfully segregated”, despite having done nothing to merit it.

What lessons might be learned from that tragedy in relation to the revised update of the policy on transgender prisoners? More importantly, does the cabinet secretary agree that all prisoners in custody are human beings who deserve dignity and that the state has a duty of care whether prisoners are transgender or otherwise?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I assure Mr Green that the recommendations of the fatal accident inquiry into the case of the prisoner who committed suicide are being taken very seriously. I have reviewed the results of that FAI, the Scottish Prison Service will respond formally and I will be happy to keep the member up to date.

The crucial point that he makes is that I am often at this podium being, rightly, held to account for the care and treatment of all prisoners—whether they are men, women, transgender men, transgender women, younger or older—who are in the care of the Scottish Prison Service. I, and the SPS acting on behalf of ministers, have a duty to ensure that all prisoners are appropriately cared for, safe and protected.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

When did the cabinet secretary last either receive or request a briefing on section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and has that been shared with Cabinet colleagues, including the First Minister, who is also hiding behind that fake argument? Given that the question revolves around the Supreme Court ruling, can the cabinet secretary explain to Parliament, and to For Women Scotland, why, more than half a year on from For Women Scotland’s success in the Supreme Court, where it defeated the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government is still withholding the costs awarded to For Women Scotland?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I cannot comment on the issue of costs, because I do not have the information to hand. I am quite sure that Mr Ross is well aware that it is not the practice of the Scottish Government to publish its legal advice and that there is such a thing in this country as legal privilege. However, I assure him that full legal advice is always taken on a range of matters, because ministers must ultimately comply with the law.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments by Professor Catriona Matheson, former chair of the drug deaths task force, that the national mission on drug deaths has failed to deliver robust, evidence-based clinical care for people affected by drug use, due to clinical and practitioner expertise being sidelined. (S6T-02748)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The latest drug deaths statistics show a 13 per cent decrease and the lowest number registered since 2017. That is welcome, but we know that there is more to be done.

The national mission has always made clear that its aim is to reduce drug-related deaths and to improve the lives of people who are affected by drugs. That mission has been directly shaped by a wide range of evidence, clinical advice, surveillance and data. We also rely directly on advice from experts through the work of the drug deaths task force and the national drugs mission clinical advisory group.

I assure the member that we are also actively engaging with service commissioners, clinicians, delivery partners and those with lived and living experience to develop our new alcohol and drugs strategic plan.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Given those comments, does the minister agree that the Scottish Government must focus on delivery to reduce drug deaths, rather than on chasing headlines, and that drug policy in this country must be based on the evidence?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I agree that it is really important that we follow the evidence, and the Scottish Government is committed to taking an evidence-based approach to the issue, using a wide range of evidence.

Clinical advice plays a key role in the making of drug and alcohol policy, along with surveillance and up-to-date data. The clinical advisory group was established in April 2023 and now meets via correspondence, with its most recent meeting being held on 17 September 2025. The workforce expert delivery group demonstrated a clear and sustained commitment to ensuring that workforce development is informed by those with direct experience and expertise in the field throughout the national mission. Not only was that group instrumental in interpreting and prioritising the recommendations of the drug deaths task force, but it provided critical oversight and expert advice on the development and implementation of the Scottish Government’s workforce action plan.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The face of the drugs crisis has changed with the emergence of synthetic opioids, which are linked to more than 100 deaths across Scotland, many of which have been in the west of Scotland. Will the minister outline how the Scottish Government plans to improve services in the west of Scotland given the growing use of synthetic opioids? What role does clinical and practitioner expertise have in that?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I have already outlined the clinical and practitioner role in developing evidence. I assure the member that, in last year’s figures, one of the substantial areas of improvement was Greater Glasgow and Clyde, where we saw a reduction of, I think, 25 per cent. I may need to check that number and get back to the member to confirm it, but we saw a substantial reduction in the number of deaths there, and that was because of sustained effort. As I have said in the chamber many times, there is no single solution that will fix the problem. We need to take advantage of a multitude of opportunities that are ahead of us to try to rise to the challenge.

The member is absolutely correct to point to the difference in the drug use that we face nowadays. When the national mission was conceived, we were dealing mainly with heroin use and heroin overdose. The picture has changed substantially, and the threat from synthetics is significant and concerning. We have a number of courses of action to rise to that, not least the rapid action drug alerts and response—RADAR—system, which picks up and disseminates information on the new threats that we are facing. We also have some drug-checking facilities, and one has recently been approved in the west of Scotland.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

What progress is the Scottish Government making on reducing drug harms? In particular, what work is being done to target the delivery of more residential rehabilitation beds?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Increasing the provision of residential rehab and ensuring that it is available to everyone who wants it and for whom it is deemed to be clinically appropriate at the time when they ask for it in every part of the country is a key pillar of the national mission. We have improved access to residential rehab through the funding of eight new facilities, increasing referrals and improving local pathways. We are on track to reach our target of 1,000 publicly funded placements a year by 2025-26, with the most recent Public Health Scotland publication showing 985 confirmed records of individuals starting a publicly funded residential rehab placement.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Professor Matheson is right that the national mission

“was more about controlling the narrative than addressing drug deaths”,

which are still the highest in Europe. We were willing to give the Thistle a chance, but it has led to nothing but misery for Calton residents. At the same time, drug deaths increased by 3 per cent in the first six months after it opened. Why could the minister not extend the same chance to the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill and work with us to improve it instead of voting it down at the first chance and continuing with the Government’s failed policies?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

It is clear that the Government and the Parliament had some significant concerns about the bill’s overly medicalised approach. It did not reflect the evidence-based, person-centred, trauma-informed model that we are committed to. We believe that enshrining rights must be done in a way that is deliverable, inclusive and aligned with existing frameworks in order to avoid unintended harm.

In her comments over the weekend, Professor Matheson raised some serious concerns about the right to recovery bill, too. She explicitly stated that it was “sensibly voted down” by the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

This is an area that the Liberal Democrats want the Government to succeed in. People are dying. I remember the widespread acclaim that accompanied the appointment of Dr Matheson to lead the task force. It is very dispiriting, then, to hear the concerns that she has raised about the Government’s approach.

We want evidence-based solutions. I visited the Thistle centre in the early morning one day in the October recess. Since that facility opened in January, it has prevented or reversed 60 overdose events through its pharmaceutical interventions. That is 60 people who are alive today who very likely would not be if they had been on the street, so I utterly reject Annie Wells’s assertion that the Thistle is not working. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

With that weight of evidence, why can we not extend that pilot to other parts of the country that are equally struggling with the scourge of drug deaths? [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Members will understand the challenges that are associated with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which were such a barrier to the introduction of the Thistle in the early stages. We have overcome those challenges for the Thistle with the support of the Lord Advocate and her prosecution policy, but that is not scalable or movable to other areas. That work process has to be gone through for every area that is considering such a centre.

Representing an area in Edinburgh, Alex Cole-Hamilton will be aware that work is on-going in the local community, with Government support. There is a groundswell of keenness to consider a safer drug consumption facility in Edinburgh, and local representatives have identified a couple of potential sites. However, there is no quick fix, because we have not had a change to the 1971 act, so there is no straightforward process to achieve what the member is asking for.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical question time.

UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19613, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button.

I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As we meet on 11 November, armistice day, wearing our poppies, to discuss the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill and the opportunity that it brings for our nation, we do so on a day of profound reflection. Today, we all paused to honour the courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives in service to our country. It is with that spirit of respect and unity that we look to the future, and sport brings nations and us all together.

I turn to the specifics of the stage 1 debate on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. First, I thank the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its constructive scrutiny. I also thank all who contributed evidence, including the Union of European Football Associations, the Scottish Football Association, Police Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission.

The Scottish Government welcomes the committee’s support for the bill’s general principles and has considered its recommendations carefully. We are committed to working with Parliament and stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is proportionate, effective and fit for purpose.

The bill is a vital step in enabling Scotland to play its part in hosting Euro 2028. In the more immediate future, our attention perhaps will be more focused on the next few days, when Scotland’s men’s team will play crucial qualifiers against Greece and Denmark for next year’s FIFA world cup. I know that I speak for us all when I say that we wish Steve Clarke and the team all the best. [ Applause .]

However, in 2028, the Euros are coming to Scotland. Euro 2028 will be the largest-ever major sporting event jointly staged by the United Kingdom and Ireland. It will be a month-long celebration of football, and Scotland will host matches at Hampden park in Glasgow, welcoming fans from across Europe and, no doubt, beyond.

The tournament is about football, but it is also about so much more. Euro 2028 aligns with our national priorities as a Government: supporting economic growth, promoting inclusion and showcasing Scotland internationally.

Our successful joint bid for Euro 2028 reflects Scotland’s significant experience and global reputation for hosting major events.

Our hosting of Euro 2020 was shaped by the pandemic, but Euro 2028 offers a fresh opportunity to provide a warm Scottish welcome and deliver really vibrant celebrations—all the way to the final match, I hope.

During Euro 2024, we saw the enthusiasm and positive reputation of Scottish supporters abroad, and we want to build on that in 2028. The tournament will boost tourism and hospitality in Scotland and promote our culture at the same time. Glasgow will host at least one official UEFA fan zone, extending the experience beyond Hampden park.

A Euro 2028 UK and Ireland social impact fund of £45 million is jointly supported by government and football partners. That is intended to deliver benefits right across these islands and Ireland.

To host Euro 2028, Scotland must meet UEFA’s requirements for protecting commercial rights; conditions apply to all host nations. Although some protections already exist, additional legislation is required, with the bill focusing on three key areas. First, it will prohibit the unauthorised sale of tickets for more than face value or for profit. Secondly, it will restrict unauthorised street trading and advertising in designated event zones. Thirdly, it will provide enforcement powers to implement the protections effectively. The measures are time limited, proportionate and targeted. The bill will be automatically repealed on 31 December 2028.

I welcome the committee’s stage 1 report and will now turn to its key themes. The committee asked for clarification on whether

“it will be legal under the Bill to resell a ticket online at face value.”

I confirm that the bill defines ticket touting as the unauthorised sale of a championship ticket either for more than its face value or with a view to making a profit. That means that reselling a ticket at face value will not in itself be an offence, provided that the seller does not intend to make profit from the transaction. However, UEFA’s ticketing terms and conditions might prohibit tickets being resold except via an authorised resale platform. Although such activity would not be a criminal offence under the bill, it could result in the ticket being voided by UEFA under those conditions once they are published. The committee also asked how ticketing offences will be addressed across borders. We are working on that with the UK Government and other host nations to support an aligned approach.

The committee raised concerns about the potential impact of the bill on street traders. We recognise the importance of Euro 2028 to local businesses, including street traders, in addition to the usual level of trade that they would expect. The bill will require Glasgow City Council to offer alternative trading arrangements to affected street traders, and we welcome the council’s intention to waive temporary licence fees for those affected traders. The bill will also require the council to publish guidance for businesses. We will continue to engage with businesses and communities as the detail of event zones is developed in the coming months.

The committee sought reassurance that the enforcement powers in the bill are proportionate and compatible with human rights. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that enforcement powers are exercised in a manner that is compatible with human rights. Enforcement officers will be subject to the legal obligations that are placed on public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998. The bill’s enforcement powers mirror those under existing legislation such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The powers include safeguards—for example, enforcement officers may enter premises only with permission or a warrant. Without permission or a warrant, using reasonable force to enter will be a decision for a police constable and not an enforcement officer. Entry to people’s homes will be subject to additional safeguards.

The committee rightly highlighted the importance of protecting freedom of expression and the right to protest, so the bill supports legitimate protest. It includes exemptions for peaceful protest, and Police Scotland will uphold rights to protest and freedom of expression. We are discussing, monitoring and reporting on human rights impacts with Glasgow City Council and other partners. Those discussions are on-going.

The committee reiterated the recommendation of its predecessor committee that the Scottish Government should consider developing an events framework bill. Although we see the potential benefits of that route, bespoke legislation for Euro 2028 is the suitable approach: it is consistent with the approach for previous major events and deliverable within the required timescales. We remain open to exploring the case for a general major events bill in future, but that would require careful consideration and engagement with stakeholders that would not have been possible within the overall timelines for Euro 2028.

In conclusion, Euro 2028 is a significant opportunity for Scotland economically and culturally, and for our reputation. The bill is essential to meeting our obligations as a host nation and delivering a successful tournament that benefits communities right across the country. We have taken a very collaborative approach, working with UEFA, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Life, Police Scotland and many others, and we will continue those constructive engagements as the bill progresses. I invite Parliament to support the general principles of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Clare Adamson to speak on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I associate myself with the minister’s comments regarding armistice day, and I back up his support for the Scottish team. It demonstrates the power of football that it can result in a round of applause across the chamber, as we do not often see united applause in this place.

As the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I was glad to see the publication of the committee’s stage 1 report on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. I thank my committee members and colleagues for their work in scrutinising the bill, as well as members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their contribution to the scrutiny of the bill. On behalf of my committee, I thank all those who provided evidence to the committee for their time and contributions. Of course, I pay tribute to the committee clerks, without whom the work could not have been completed.

The Scottish Government states that the bill is intended to establish commercial rights protections that are in line with the requirements of UEFA ahead of hosting the Euro 2028 matches in Hampden park. The bill includes provision to ban certain commercial activities, such as the unauthorised resale of tickets above face value or with a view to making a profit, and unauthorised street trading and advertising within the championship event zone. The bill also provides enforcement powers, creates a criminal offence of obstructing enforcement officers in their duties, and requires that Glasgow City Council publish guidance and offer alternative trading arrangements to affected street traders.

Our scrutiny considered the bill’s intentions and provisions, and our stage 1 report outlined several questions and recommendations regarding the bill. I thank the minister and his officials for their response to the committee’s report, which addresses those points. I also thank UEFA and UK & Ireland 2028 Ltd for providing their joint response to the report.

I turn to the findings of our report regarding the bill’s provisions. On the ticket touting offence that is included in the bill, we sought clarity from the Scottish Government on whether reselling tickets at face value will be legal. I welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation that, providing that the seller does not intend to profit from the transaction, that will not be an offence.

Our report raised concerns regarding the potential impact on street traders of the bill’s street-trading restrictions, as all hosting authorities will be required to undertake a range of measures during the championships, including taking all reasonable measures to prohibit, restrict and prevent unauthorised street trading. We asked the Government what further engagement it will undertake with street traders ahead of the tournament.

The bill also requires Glasgow City Council to offer alternative arrangements to affected street traders and to provide guidance on the restrictions. Our report asks the council to clarify how guidance will be communicated and how impacts on street traders will be minimised. We also asked UEFA to clarify what assessments it had undertaken of the potential impact of the restrictions on street traders. In response, UEFA stated that it is keen for local businesses to feel the benefits of hosting the championship.

We also sought clarity on the bill’s enforcement provisions, particularly the power for a police constable to enter and search a place—though not a house—without permission or a warrant if they believe that there is a real and substantial risk that delay in seeking a warrant would defeat the purpose of taking action. We took considerable time over the issue, and our report asked the Scottish Government to clarify

“what criteria must be met to qualify such a risk as ‘real and substantial’”.

I thank the Scottish Government for setting out the basis for the criteria in its response to our report.

We also considered the bill’s potential human rights impacts relating to the restrictions on ambush marketing. We stated that

“a clear distinction must be drawn between activity with a commercial purpose, where restrictions may be justified, and activity with a social or political purpose”—

such as protests—

“where restrictions are not justified”.

We recommended that

“the Scottish Government should work with Glasgow City Council to monitor and report on any human rights impacts arising from the Bill’s provisions”.

Following our stage 1 scrutiny, the committee supports the general principles of the bill. I look forward to hearing the perspectives and contributions of colleagues in today’s debate. I reiterate my thanks to those who were involved in the stage 1 process, particularly my committee colleagues who might be slightly more excited about the Euros than I am. Nonetheless, this will be a great opportunity for Scotland, so we should all look forward to the Euros, and I again wish Scotland the very best.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Of course, we all welcome the opportunity for Scotland to host an international sporting event with the prestige of the Euros. Euro 2028 will provide a platform to promote Scotland and to showcase the warmth and hospitality of Scotland’s people.

Every one of us wants to see Scotland’s men’s team playing in the finals, but, as we consider the bill, let us not be naive about what UEFA is. It is a powerful supranational corporation that is unaccountable to any public body—it is accountable only to its member associations. The bill is, in essence, the domestic legal instrument through which Scotland will deliver the guarantees that UEFA demands. We should proceed with our eyes wide open, aware that we are implementing the conditions of a commercial contract, not designing policy from first principles.

The bill’s first substantive sections—sections 2 to 4—criminalise the unauthorised sale or resale of championship tickets above face value or for profit, as the minister mentioned. The offence will result in a summary conviction only and will be punishable by a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000.

The provision applies to tickets, including those that are sold or advertised electronically, for all matches that are played in Scotland. However, crucially, the provision does not extend beyond the territory of Scotland, which means that anyone operating an online resale platform outside Scotland or simply listing tickets on an external-based website falls outside the bill’s reach. The Government’s legal directorate confirmed that the extraterritorial competence that is required to go further is lacking. We agree that touting is a scourge that prices fans out of major events, but fragmented national regulation invites exploitation. A UK-wide framework would close loopholes and simplify enforcement by Police Scotland and the Crown Office. The principle of the bill is right, but its scope is inadequate.

There is also an issue of equity and common sense in how the offence is framed. UEFA and its authorised partners are exempt from the touting ban, but community groups, schools and charities are not. Under the bill, a parent council raffling Euro 2028 tickets to raise funds or a local hospice auctioning a pair of tickets at an event would technically be committing a criminal offence. That cannot be right. Charitable causes, especially those that are rooted in our local communities, should not be collateral damage in UEFA’s efforts to police its commercial rights. The exemption must be broadened to allow legitimate charitable fundraising.

Sections 5 to 15 will restrict unauthorised street trading and advertising within the designated event zones around Hampden park and the official fan zones. Those zones and the prohibited times will be defined later by statutory instruments under the negative procedure. As has already been said, Glasgow City Council must publish guidance and offer alternative trading arrangements for licensed street traders who are displaced during the tournament. However, there is no provision for compensation for those traders or for small, fixed-premises businesses that might suffer loss of trade. In fact, the committee received communication from UEFA just yesterday saying that there was no intention to offer any legitimate compensation.

Because we have to, we recognise UEFA’s legitimate commercial interest in preventing ambush marketing and protecting official sponsors. However, local cafes, kiosks and stallholders who have traded in Mount Florida for years will see their peak earning period removed. If any compensation is due, it must come from UEFA, not from Scottish taxpayers. The party of business cannot support the public purse underwriting a multibillion-euro organisation.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the member for giving way and welcome his general welcome for the bill. Can he explain further how he thinks the cafe in Mount Florida that he cited would lose out, and give an example, just so that I can understand his arguments?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Very simply, the cafe would be asked to conduct its business in another location, which obviously would not be prime to its business interests, and it would be dislocated on the basis of UEFA’s commercial interests. We should recognise that. We should not lose sight of what the bill is, in effect.

The enforcement regime that is set out in sections 16 to 28 grants to designated enforcement officers, who might include local authority staff or contractors, powers to enter and search premises, vehicles or stalls to seize or conceal goods and to use reasonable force. That is a serious departure from normal practice. Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, entry without warrant is permitted only for immediate risk to public safety. Under the bill, it would be exercised to protect branding rights.

I accept the Government’s argument that UEFA requires a rapid enforcement mechanism, but the absence of judicial oversight fits uneasily with the long-established protections of property and due process in Scots law. Unless UEFA can demonstrate that a warrant requirement would breach its hosting criteria, those powers should be curtailed.

We will support the bill at stage 1 because, without it, Scotland cannot host Euro 2028, and we all want Scotland to host Euro 2028. However, we support the bill on the clear understanding that the Government must look more closely at tightening the enforcement provisions to restore warrant safeguards, press UEFA to contribute to a compensation scheme for displaced traders and work with the UK Government to deliver consistent ticket-touting regulation across these islands.

Euro 2028 will be a proud moment for Scotland but, as we welcome the world, let us uphold our principles: fairness, accountability, the rule of law and respect for enterprise.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I am pleased to take part in the stage 1 debate on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. In opening, I join the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in thanking the witnesses and clerks for their support in drafting the committee’s stage 1 report.

Scottish Labour has consistently supported the UK and Ireland hosting the 2028 Euros. I know that many of us will be looking forward to welcoming this major event to Scotland. It is important to remember that, when Glasgow hosted the 2020 Euros in 2021, many missed out due to Covid restrictions. Thankfully, there will be no such restrictions this time. Many children today, such as my own son, were too young to properly remember the last championship on home soil. This will provide them with an exciting opportunity to witness a major international tournament coming to their shores.

It will also be an opportunity to host people, not just from Europe but from across the world, because of our shared love of football. It will be an opportunity for visitors to take time to explore our culture, heritage and rich history, and we can use it as a fantastic platform to promote brand Scotland on the global stage.

The economic benefits to Scotland, the rest of the UK and Ireland are substantial. The UK Department for Media, Culture and Sport estimates that the tournament will contribute £2.4 billion in socioeconomic value to the host nations. I am pleased that, alongside that, the UK Labour Government has recognised the importance of sport by pledging £900 million in funding as part of the Government’s plan for change. More than £500 million of that will be used to support world-class sporting events and, crucially, £400 million is being provided for grass-roots sporting facilities in order to help more people to get active and improve their wellbeing, and so that the sporting talent of tomorrow can be discovered. I welcome what the minister has said about Scottish Government funding, too.

Scottish Labour fully supports the Euros being held in the UK and Ireland in 2028. We want to see more major international cultural and sporting events being hosted in Scotland to boost our economy, raise our international profile and give people here the opportunity to witness world-class events. For those reasons, we encouraged the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to bring the Commonwealth games to Glasgow in 2026. They are also why we fully support the UK Labour Government working with the football associations and devolved Administrations to bring the women’s FIFA world cup to the UK in 2035. These events contribute immense value to our society, wellbeing and economy. There are demonstrable benefits of bringing them to Scotland and of working with the rest of the UK to do so. It is also right for the Government to remain open, as the minister has said it is, to the introduction of a major events framework bill in future.

Scottish Labour supports the principles of the bill, as we recognise that it is necessary legislation for meeting our obligations to UEFA and securing the championships. However, the committee has pointed to several areas and issues of concern that should be addressed. Part of the reason for hosting these events is to ensure that Scottish fans can access them without the cost of going abroad. As members have already said, we must prevent ordinary fans being priced out, and we cannot allow people to make financial gain by reselling tickets at extortionate prices. That is why Scottish Labour will work with the Scottish Government and other parties to clamp down on ticket touting. We support the measures in the bill that aim to do that, and we are keen to ensure that any loopholes that would disadvantage or exploit fans are addressed.

The committee also took evidence on concerns about restrictions on street traders, which Stephen Kerr has just talked about. It is vital that the Scottish Government maintains close dialogue with Glasgow City Council to ensure that street traders are properly informed about any restrictions during the tournament and that any negative impact on them is minimised. We agree with the committee’s recommendation that measures relating to commercial activity must be limited and proportionate. I believe that a proper impact assessment would be helpful, and even necessary, to us in understanding how that can be done.

I welcome what the minister said about the Government’s engagement with Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life. Further clarity on warrantless access by enforcement officers would be welcome. I welcome what the minister said about human rights and the right to protest, but further clarity on what distinction will be drawn between commercial activity and social or political activity would also be welcome. I also welcome what the minister said about working constructively with the UK Government to ensure that there is alignment of enforcement and delivery of the games.

Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1 and will work with the minister and other parties to address any outstanding issues that are raised in the committee’s report. As long as those clarifications are addressed in the bill’s later stages, Scottish Labour looks forward to supporting legislation that protects fans, supports local businesses and ensures that Scotland plays its part in hosting a successful and memorable UEFA European championships in 2028.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We now move to the open debate, and I confirm to members that we have a bit of time in hand and that those who take interventions will get time added to the end of their contributions.

I call George Adam for a generous six minutes.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

As someone who has followed Scotland both home and away and who proudly backs St Mirren from the Paisley buddies’ end, I have a lot to say about our national game in general. Some might be shocked by what I will speak on today. I could talk about the quality, or lack of quality, of Scottish football refereeing or of the video assistant referee as a separate subsection of the same debate, or about whether Scotland fans should be allowed a pint as they watch the game, but today is not about those important issues of our national game; it is about hosting Euro 2028.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Mr Adam has intrigued me and, given that we have the luxury of a few extra minutes, I would quite like to hear George Adam’s views on giving our football fans the right to have a pint at a match, because that is something that we on this side of the chamber very much support.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You are being led astray, Mr Adam.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I would like to, but I am sure the Deputy Presiding Officer will stop me from straying from the actual issue under debate. However, I think that that is something that we should discuss in this Parliament in future.

Football brings people together, in between the times when we all fall out about various aspects of the game. As the minister said, today is armistice day, and everyone knows the story of first Christmas of the great war when, in 1914, those on the western front systematically stopped fighting and met in no man’s land. They passed each other gifts, drinks and trinkets and they played football, because football is the international language that everyone understands.

I want Euro 2028 in Glasgow to be a celebration of football. Some nations claim that football is coming home when it goes to their nation but we all know that the modern, passing game of football was born in Glasgow, not far from the stadium that will host the games, and that it was in the great Queen’s park that we actually moved forward from the rugby-type game played in other parts of the home nations to the silky football that we now regularly see in Scotland.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Does George Adam also recognise the work of Elspeth King, who passed away last week? She was a historian who was well-respected across this chamber and who discovered and verified that a football found at Stirling Castle was the first to be recognised as such.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

That would have been an interesting game, although completely different from the modern game invented in Queen’s park, and I recognise that too.

Regardless of what we say and do here, Hampden will be bouncing when the games happen. Our job is to ensure that the law helps us to host well-organised events while protecting people’s rights and local livelihoods. Euro 2028 is more than a tournament: it will showcase Scotland to the world as a dynamic, welcoming and ambitious nation. Independent analysis suggests that there will be £2.6 billion in socioeconomic benefits across the UK and Ireland, with real opportunities for tourism and hospitality here in Scotland to benefit.

The bill, as others have said, does three main things: it bans ticket touting for profit; it controls street trading in event zones at set times; and it prevents ambush advertising around Euro 2028. It also sets out clear enforcement powers and includes a sunset clause so that special measures will lapse after the tournament.

On ticket touting, the committee heard clear evidence about whether we are actually tackling modern online resales from sellers that sit outside Scotland. The 2025 bill removes the extraterritorial element that existed in 2020, which means that a question remains about what practical co-ordination is in place across the UK to stop the profiteering that prices ordinary fans out of the game. Fans should not be outbid by bots and scalpers when all they want to do is see their country play. The committee highlighted that, if we need a published cross-border plan with operational guidance from Police Scotland and its counterparts, we should say so and get that done.

On exemptions, the committee has questioned the drafting that would allow UEFA to sell tickets. The committee has the right to do that, and I share the concern. We need absolute clarity that a loophole will not be created for individuals to personally profit. Regardless of who they are and where they got the tickets from, the intent is to enable proper distribution and not open the door to officials touting tickets. I am passionate about beating ticket touts whoever they are, although I equally recognise that the commercial revenue that is generated for UEFA and its corporate partners supports our beautiful game. Tightening the explanatory notes or guidance should give fans confidence that the system will be fair and that they will get value for money on tickets and merchandise.

I have gone round the houses on the issue of street trading, because Glasgow traders help to make our big occasions special. Who has not heard, “Get your hats, scarves and flags here” at many a game? Glasgow City Council needs to work with those traders to ensure that they get an opportunity to operate elsewhere, given that UEFA and its sponsors are spending quite a lot of money on the championship.

On advertising, ambush marketing should not be allowed to hijack the tournament, but the committee has been clear that we must draw a line between commercial promotion and social or political expression. Peaceful non-commercial protest is part of Scotland’s democracy and democratic life and it should not be chilled by event rules. It is essential to strike the right balance between commercial infringement and being careful with civil liberties.

I feel that I have taken quite a bit of time, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise Mr Adam that the clerks have reminded me on VAR that speeches in the open debate should be four minutes and not six minutes, so I would be grateful if he could begin to conclude.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I am into overtime, so I will be very quick.

Football belongs to its supporters first and foremost. As a St Mirren fan and as a Scotland supporter, I want kids, families and lifelong fans to get in at fair prices and local businesses to benefit, with their rights being respected. With tighter clarity on online touting, co-ordination, precise exemptions, practical support for traders and proportionate enforcement, the bill can deliver that balance.

Let us make Euro 2028 not just a great tournament at Hampden, but a tournament that feels like Scotland—fair, welcoming and proud.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise for that slight misdirection, Mr Adam.

I call Brian Whittle. You have around four minutes, Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Thank you. We are now back on time.

It is always a pleasure to follow George Adam when we are discussing football. I am sure that it will not surprise members to hear that I am pleased to speak in this debate about bringing a major international sporting event to Scotland. I have spoken many times about the influence of sport, but I welcome this opportunity to do so again and to speak about how it brings culture and resilience—goodness knows, our Scottish supporters sometimes need that—as well as togetherness and confidence. As well as health benefits, sport can also engender aspiration, hope and community. Bringing such international sporting events to Scotland is part of a jigsaw that can help us to move from being a nation of sport watchers to a nation of participation.

As other speakers have said, Euro 2028 offers Scotland an exceptional opportunity to show itself off on a world stage, not only on the pitch, but more widely across the country. Football holds a special place in the hearts of many Scots, and Scotland’s tartan army is always a great ambassador for us across the world.

Euro 2028 is an opportunity for us to welcome football fans from around the world to our shores, and all of us on the Conservative benches want us to make the most of that opportunity. That is why, as my colleague Stephen Kerr alluded to, we have a responsibility to ensure that our preparations, including the bill, leave us ready to be a welcoming and effective host. That means not only being a good host for the tournament and the many international visitors that it will bring, but also ensuring that the tournament is both welcoming to and welcomed by Scots.

Some aspects of the bill unquestionably cause concern in that regard. Although I appreciate that there are requirements that UEFA and other international sporting bodies demand of any host country on issues such as ticket touting, street trading and advertising, some of the powers that are granted in the bill seem a tad heavy handed.

I am therefore pleased that the bill is being presented well in advance of the event, noting that a lack of time for communication with the public was highlighted as an issue with the previous legislation for Euro 2020. Most people will not necessarily notice the effects of the legislation; however, it is critical that sufficient time and effort is used to inform those whom it affects. The broad restrictions on street trading and advertising, while understandable, raise questions about how the Scottish Government and UEFA balance the commercial interests of the tournament against giving established local traders an opportunity to benefit from the increased footfall. Many major sporting events, from the Olympic games to the open championship, struggle with that balance, but that alone cannot be an excuse for local traders taking a financial penalty.

On ticket touting, although I agree that reselling tickets at vastly inflated rates to desperate fans is an issue that needs to be addressed, I argue that legislating piecemeal for specific events feels like an ineffective approach in the long run. The issue may arise in the public consciousness only when we read reports of resellers offering tickets for major concerts or sporting events at ludicrous premiums, but it should be tackled. The passion that fans have should not be an opportunity for touts to exploit. Both the Scottish and UK Governments should do more to protect fans from that cynical practice. In fact, it will take a unified approach from all UEFA members to tackle ticket touting effectively.

I want Euro 2028 to come to Scotland and succeed, but a successful tournament must bring benefits to Scotland long after the football circus has packed up and left town. If it becomes an event that lands in the country, closes itself off from the economy and disrupts lives and livelihoods for no lasting gain, I will not judge it a success.

Just as I have spoken previously about the importance of legacy from fantastic events such as the Commonwealth games, so, too, must we consider the legacy of Euro 2028. The bill is an opportunity to do that, because legacy is not necessarily just about investing in shiny new facilities or supporting grass-roots sport—although, obviously, I welcome all of that. Legacy is also in the memory of the event. Was there a welcoming atmosphere? Did Scots feel part of it? Those questions matter, and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider them as the bill progresses.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate.

Football is our national sport. It is a passion for many of us in Scotland. I had lots of passion on Saturday, while I was watching Hibs beat the mighty St Mirren 3-0 after failing to do so last season. I am taking my life in my hands by mentioning that in front of George Adam.

I also remember—this will show my age—when Scotland beat Spain 3-1 back in 1984, when Kenny Dalglish turned away and scored a memorable goal. I was at Hampden on that day.

I coached professionally for 11 years with Hibs and during my career was lucky enough to visit Holland, Germany, Denmark and Portugal, sharing ideas and discussing coaching methods. Football is a global language.

It is the dream of every football academy player to play for Scotland. I had the pleasure of coaching players who went on to do that. I know that there are young players in the academies now who are targeting Euro 2028 as an opportunity. I remember watching a young Billy Gilmour many years ago, when he played for Rangers, and thinking that he was a fantastic player. We can all see where he is now.

My son has followed in my footsteps. He now coaches at Nottingham Forest, having previously been at Hearts and Celtic.

We have been talking about legacy, which is key. This year, Scottish football supporters topped a European attendance chart for the third year running. Citing a recently published UEFA report, the Scottish Professional Football League said that

“football fans across Scotland have recorded significantly higher top-flight attendances per capita than any other league in Europe”.

We should be proud of that. UEFA’s report, entitled “The European Club Talent and Competition Landscape”, was launched in 2023. The latest report revealed that the Scottish premiership had 18.5 attendees per 1,000 people at matches last season, which is a 5 per cent increase on the previous campaign. That is 70 per cent higher than any other league in Europe. Portugal’s Primeira Liga sits in second place, with 10.7 attendees per 1,000 people, and the Netherlands’ Eredivisie is third, with 9.77 attendees. England’s Premier League has 6.97 attendees per 1,000 people. Around 4 million fans attended top-flight matches in Scotland last term. That is the eighth-highest attendance in Europe.

I was lucky enough to attend the last two European championships—in 2021 in Scotland and in 2024 in Germany—with my wife, my son and daughter, and their two partners. The memory of singing “Flower of Scotland” at the Allianz arena in Munich at the first game of that championship was incredible. The build-up to the game with Germany supporters was great—we sang and enjoyed German hospitality. Our support was, of course, incredible, and it drove tourism to Scotland. The game itself was fine for only 10 minutes, unfortunately.

Hosting Euro 2028 presents an opportunity for us to build on Scotland’s strong track record of delivering major events. The bill will enable Scotland to play its part in hosting the championships, ensuring that Scotland meets UEFA’s host nation requirements. It is there to protect us from exploitation, ticket touting, unauthorised trading and so on, and the Scottish Government has worked with partners and key stakeholders in the Parliament. The bill takes action on ticket touting and prohibits the unauthorised sale of championship tickets for profit, above the face cost, and that will apply to all matches. There is an exception for the auction of tickets to raise funds for charity.

The bill will prohibit unauthorised street trading and advertising in designated event zones. George Adam is right to mention the sale of hats and scarves, which is a feature of every Scotland game that we might go to. As some members have said, there is a balance to be struck, as local business needs to see the benefit of the tournament coming to Scotland. The bill will set criminal offences for ticket touting and unauthorised trading and advertising. It will, of course, be an offence to obstruct an enforcement officer.

Scotland will play Greece on Saturday—and Denmark next Tuesday, when I will head to Hampden to cheer on Scotland to world cup qualification. I hope that we will be cheering on Scotland before Euro 2028, when the team heads to the USA, Canada and Mexico for the world cup in 2026.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I welcome the Scottish Government getting ahead of the game and introducing the bill. I was involved in the previous Commonwealth games in Scotland. We were told in 2008 that they would happen, and the six years until they did just zoomed by—they passed really quickly. The preparation work paid off in the end, however. I am sure that the organisers will appreciate the action that the Government is going to take.

Until I took up a political career, I was heavily involved in the current preparations in Glasgow, so I know that the staff involved regard major events there as business as usual, because there are so many happening, whether be they football, Commonwealth games or cycling championships. However, the staff must be commended for how they carry out their duties.

I join the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in asking the Scottish Government to consider introducing generic legislation to cover large events, which would save a lot of wasted time if we have another big event soon—co-hosting the women’s world cup in 2035 being an example. It would be better to have tailor-made legislation for large events, rather than just a specific law for football that covers advertising and security provisions. That would mean not having to waste the Parliament’s time for every single event. Although we have not seen proposals for women’s events, we should liaise now with the SFA to ensure that women’s football in Scotland is adequately represented.

The proposed limitations on profiting from ticket sales are welcome. The effect on charities that auction off tickets has been mentioned, and we should take that into consideration. I am keen to hear how the Scottish Government can work with the organisers to ensure that a selection of affordable tickets is made available through schools and local clubs, including those covering a range of disability facilities, so that the tournament can be as inclusive as possible.

I remind members of the disappointing actions of a minority of football fans during the 2020 Euro finals—which were held in 2021, because of Covid. I would like to see assurances that that kind of behaviour will not be seen in 2028. I believe that it is for ministers to have that discussion with the organisers, Glasgow City Council and the police.

My thanks to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its oversight of the bill at this early stage. More work is needed to provide assurances to market traders, local businesses and fans, especially in communications about the proposed legislation. However, I am quite happy to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The final speaker in the open debate is Mr Kidd, who has around four minutes.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

As we have heard, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill will provide the legal framework that is necessary for hosting part of Euro 2028 here in Scotland. The bill will ensure that commercial rights, ticketing, trading and advertising are regulated in line with UEFA’s requirements, which does not suit everybody entirely, but which is something important to talk about.

Although these are important practical measures—ensuring fairness, protecting fans from exploitation and maintaining the integrity of the event—I believe that today’s debate, and indeed any discussion around the Euros, needs to go further than simply regulation. It must also focus on the question of legacy. What lasting impact will Euro 2028 have for the people of Scotland once the final whistle blows?

As Professor David McGillivray of the University of the West of Scotland reminds us, all major sporting events produce legacies—some positive, some not. The difference lies in how deliberately we plan for them. A lasting legacy will not emerge by chance. It requires foresight, investment and co-ordination across the Government, local authorities and sporting bodies from the outset.

The minister has rightly noted that the projected economic benefit could be as high as £2.6 billion across the whole of the UK, but economic figures alone do not tell the full story. We must ensure that the benefits of that investment translate into real outcomes for our communities in relation to participation, wellbeing, inclusion and pride. Glasgow has a strong record in that regard. From the 2014 Commonwealth games to the 2023 UCI cycling world championships, we have seen how hosting global events can raise our international profile and deliver infrastructure improvements. However, the lesson from those experiences is clear: legacy does not just happen—it has to be built. That means using the inspiration of Euro 2028 to strengthen grassroots football across Scotland. It means improving access to facilities so that every young person, regardless of their background, gender or ability, can take part in sport. It means working with schools and communities to promote health, fitness and social inclusion through football.

The tournament slogan, “Football for all, football for good, football for the future”, should guide our approach. We must live up to those words, ensuring that public money that is invested in the event delivers returns in terms of health, opportunity and social cohesion. The legacy must be felt in every corner of Scotland—not just at Hampden park or in the hospitality sector, but in local clubs, youth programmes and communities that see football as a force for good.

Presiding Officer, this is about accountability. Public funding is being committed, and it is our duty to make sure that it is not spent solely on making our stadiums shine for the cameras. Instead, it must help to create a framework for lasting community benefit through sport, inclusion and pride in the place in which we live.

In evidence to the committee, the minister highlighted that the impact of the benefits gained from the tournament will be spread across Scotland, thereby furthering a number of national outcomes. I would welcome it if the minister could expand on that today.

I also support calls for a future chamber debate dedicated specifically to the legacy planning for Euro 2028, to ensure transparency, co-ordination and a clear strategy that aligns with our national outcomes on health, community wellbeing and participation. When the stands are empty, the visitors have gone home and the cameras have turned elsewhere, what will remain is the Scotland that we built through this opportunity. If we do it right, that Scotland will be healthier, more active and more united. Let Euro 2028 be not just a great tournament—and it will be—but a great opportunity to secure a win for us all.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We now move to closing speeches.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There has been a consensus across the chamber that the 2028 tournament will be good for Scotland, good for Ireland, and good for the UK overall.

In his opening speech, the minister talked about armistice day. Interestingly, this morning, I was reading the Central Fife Times , which reported on a game between veterans and serving Black Watch members that took place in my home village of Kelty on Saturday. It raised quite a bit of money for Poppyscotland, and after the game, the participants proceeded to the war memorial and laid a wreath. That goes back to the point about how football—the same goes for many sports, but it is certainly football in Scotland—brings people together.

It is worth remembering that at the previous European championships in Germany, the Scotland fans—the tartan army—were praised to the highest by every community they went to, because there was a good atmosphere; it was a party atmosphere. At a time when we see so much division in our country and around the world, football has a key role to play in bringing people together.

The minister talked about Scotland’s global reputation for hosting events, and Davy Russell made a point about the staff who are involved in gearing up for such events. We should thank those staff, as Davy Russell did, and recognise that the authority that will have the greatest role to play in 2028, with the support of the Scottish Government, is Glasgow City Council, through its staff. We in the Parliament, therefore, want a guarantee that the council will receive the support that it needs to carry out the functions for the event.

I was speaking to someone about the bill the other day, and they raised a question with me about the infrastructure around Hampden. I think that the minister should be looking at the infrastructure that is in place. That lady gave me the example of the events that she attended at Murrayfield, which hosts all the big events, such as the large Oasis concerts during the summer, and she talked about the transport links. Another member in the chamber has drawn attention to the transport links around Hampden, in particular the rail track, so I hope that the minister would agree that we should look at what improvements need to be made to ensure that the proper infrastructure is in place.

Stephen Kerr made some interesting points, one being that, although we need to pass the bill in order for the games to go ahead, it is all about protecting UEFA’s commercial interests. With regard to some of the tradespeople who will lose out as a result of the bill, it is, again, for Glasgow City Council to work with those people, because the event will not happen only on the day. There will be a build up to it, and there will be real business opportunities. I hope that we can work with the council to ensure that on-street traders do not lose out and there will be opportunities for them.

Bill Kidd made an important point about legacy and what we can do to ensure that. The reality is that football is the national sport in Scotland. I talked about my home village—I live near a public park, and every night of the week it is full of young children playing football. There are boys’ teams and girls’ teams. A lot depends on the coaches, who are often parents or people who love the game, giving up their time to coach and support young people. I hope that part of the legacy of the games will be to recognise the voluntary work that goes on and to put in place much more support to encourage the growth of that. I hope that we will qualify for the upcoming games, but if we invest in grass-roots sports now, we can perhaps have the ambition of one day winning a European cup and the world cup. I hope that that will be the legacy that Bill Kidd spoke about.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

First, I declare an interest in the debate as a football fan and a supporter of the current Scottish cup holders, Aberdeen. There were no cheers—that is a shame. I am also a fan of the current UEFA Europa league winners, Tottenham Hotspur. Again, there are no cheers—it is a tough crowd, Deputy Presiding Officer.

It has been an interesting debate; it started with George Adam signing up to Stephen Kerr’s new campaign for football fans to be able to enjoy a pint at games. I am looking forward to Mr Adam hosting Stephen Kerr in Paisley and being able to extract a pint out of him, although that may be a challenge.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

A Diet Coke only.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have started too controversially—I apologise.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I have been working on the idea of having alcohol at football matches for some time. St Mirren is having a pilot on allowing pre-game drinks, and I am quite happy to invite Mr Kerr along to that, so that he and I can have a friendly couple of pints before a game against his team.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Adam is taking advantage of a free bar—that is very impressive.

I join colleagues in thanking committee colleagues and our clerks for all of their efforts, as well as members from across the chamber who are welcoming Euro 2028 to the UK and Ireland.

Euro 2028 will be a tournament with global reach and interest that puts Scotland firmly on the world stage. We can look forward to it not only bringing considerable economic benefits but—as I am sure we all hope—delivering an enduring sporting legacy for years to come. As Brian Whittle touched on, that has not always been the case with other major events.

The joint bid, featuring all of the home nations and the Republic of Ireland, was first announced in 2022. Moving it forward successfully has demonstrated positive co-operation between the football associations and also the Governments of these islands.

Scotland has some experience of large-scale sporting events, with the successful delivery of events for the London 2012 Olympics and the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow, but it is important that Euro 2028 serves to underline Scotland as a world-leading host nation for the future.

To turn to the legislation, we have been here before, as many have noted. Similar legislation was introduced as part of the Euro 2020 hosting bid, and similar sorts of legislative change were required in relation to the Commonwealth games. As a member of the lead committee, I thank all those who gave evidence again at stage 1.

Of course, the committee has raised the question of the necessity for what the Scottish Government has tentatively dubbed a major events bill, to provide a legislative framework for future events, rather than having to address them piecemeal whenever Scotland is playing host. There is some merit to that proposal, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has left the door open to look at it in more detail in the future.

Some of the issues that have arisen are the same as those that arose in 2020. As my colleague, Stephen Kerr, noted, this is a bill that legislates with a nakedly commercial purpose. It applies different rules for Euro 2028 than it does for other events, and different approaches, some of which have been understandably controversial. He also pointed to the absurd outcomes that would mean that a charity raffling off a ticket could fall foul of the offences in this bill. On the ticket touting issue, he cautioned that cross-border work will be essential. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has given assurances that policing will, in practice, be proportionate. However, that is no substitute for rigour in legislating.

There has been discussion, including by the committee, about the impact on street trading and advertising. Again, that is nothing new. Similar concerns were raised in relation to the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. However, as Stephen Kerr noted, there is ample scope for ensuring that costs do not fall on traders or other innocent parties whose businesses may be disrupted. I doubt that anyone in this chamber wishes to see anything less than firm consultation and collaboration between Government, communities, the police, the city council and local businesses. However, that work must be planned for and become a practical reality over the coming months and years.

I will touch briefly on the contribution from my colleague Brian Whittle. He talked about the passion of fans and how that should not be exploited by touts. Again, I think that we would all agree with that. He also touched on legacy—he was talking not just about the shiny things, but about what is left in the memories of Scots. I am sure that we all remember some of the first tournaments that we watched on television or were lucky enough to attend. I certainly hope that there is an opportunity for many young Scots—boys and girls—to attend these events and experience them first-hand. That opportunity is absolutely vital to ensuring the legacy.

This bill will see widespread support as a result of the enthusiasm for the UK and Ireland Euros, but the work of this committee and the remarks from around the chamber today are aimed at recognising that the bill—and the tournament more generally—will have an impact. We ought to consider not just the cost to the public sector but the potential disruption to people’s lives and businesses and, particularly, the impact on local residents in Glasgow.

As the bill goes through its next stages, I hope that we recognise some of the elements mentioned in the stage 1 report and, where possible, enhance the positives and soften the negatives of an event of this scale coming to Scotland.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank everyone for their speeches. There have been some ups and downs in the debate. Jamie Halcro Johnston went up in my estimation—for the first time, I think—when he said that he is an Aberdeen fan. Paul McLennan went down in my estimation when he reminded us that he is a Hibs fan. In the last home game that I was at in Pittodrie, which was a few days ago, Hibs beat Aberdeen 2-1. That was not the best of experiences.

I enjoyed everyone’s speeches, and a lot of serious issues were brought to the chamber. I again thank the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its engagement on the bill, which will continue at stage 2. I also join others in paying tribute to Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Life, Police Scotland and other partners, which have done so much to bring all this together and which will have so much to do as we move forward.

I will pick up on a few of the issues in the few minutes that are available to me. However, I will first say that this is an exciting opportunity for Scotland. The Commonwealth games are coming up, then the grand départ of the Tour de France, Euro 2028 and, in between all that, the Open, which will return to St Andrews. There will no doubt be other events taking place across the country. Scotland has a massive international stage over the next three years, and there is also a huge economic and cultural opportunity.

A very exciting few years is coming up for Scotland. Today, we are debating one aspect of that, which is Euro 2028.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Paul McLennan highlighted that we are extraordinarily good at watching sport. On the point about 2014, I disagree with Bill Kidd about one thing, which is that we never made the most of the legacy opportunity. In fact, the legacy from 2014—by accident—is that we will get the 2026 games. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that we make the most of the sporting legacy?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That is an important issue, and it has been reflected in the speeches of several members. The Scottish Government takes it seriously. I mentioned in my opening remarks the £45 million fund for social impact, which will apply across these islands, plus Ireland. The detail of that fund, how it will be allocated and so on will be worked out in the coming months. There will shortly be more announcements from UEFA, the home nations and so on, and more will be said about that.

Alex Rowley and others mentioned affordability and accessibility. The Scottish Government agrees that the tournament must be inclusive and accessible. I point out that UEFA previously made efforts to offer affordable tickets. During Euro 2024, over 1 million tickets were available for €60 or less, with entry-level pricing at €30. UEFA also says that it reinvests 97.5 per cent of its net revenue back into football, including grass-roots developments and social programmes. We will look carefully at how that pans out over the next few years in Scotland.

Several other issues were raised. Stephen Kerr—I am not picking on him—raised a couple of issues in his opening remarks, which I would like to clarify. The cafe in Mount Florida that he cited is safe. This is about street trader licences, not fixed premises. As others have said, it is important that we take into account the issues regarding street traders, which could include food trucks or people selling scarves or whatever. As we have said before, Glasgow City Council is working closely with those street traders. The traders will potentially be offered alternative locations and the fee for those licences will be waived in such circumstances. More will be said about that by Glasgow City Council in the coming months. Guidance will also be issued to local businesses, including businesses in fixed premises in the fan zones and stadium zones. Those are the facts.

On ticket touting, which several members have raised, it is important that people have fair access to fair prices for their tickets. That is why it is important that we tackle ticket touting. I point out in relation to Stephen Kerr’s comment on figures that the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is an unlimited fine. The limit on summary conviction is £20,000, not £5,000, as Stephen Kerr indicated. Last time around, in Euro 2020, the limit was £5,000. However, as George Adam pointed out, technology has moved on, and ticket touts are perhaps using technology for their own means. Therefore, the higher fine is appropriate in this circumstance, and I hope that it will be a disincentive to ticket touts.

It was initially argued that there should be no exceptions for charities. However, we have put in an exception for charities now. Stephen Kerr says that that does not go far enough, but we must somehow make it easy to implement the provision. There is an official register of charities in Scotland, so when the enforcement agencies are looking at who can be exempt, they must refer to that list of charities. I think that we have taken a fair and proportionate approach to the charity exemption. Other countries do that and some do not. We are doing it because we think that it is the right thing to do.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is the minister prepared to look closely at the issue of community-based charities that will not be registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and therefore could be criminalised if they try, as I am sure that many of them would plan to, to raise money for good causes in the community by raffling tickets?

Will the minister also comment on ticket touting and the efforts that the Scottish Government is making to secure co-operation with the UK Government and other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom so that we can deal with the issue holistically, rather than partially, given the limitations on territoriality?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask the minister to begin to wind up his speech.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Ticket touting outside Scotland’s borders has been discussed with the UK Government. I am sure that more will be said publicly, and that the Scottish Parliament and the relevant committees will be informed, about the outcome of that in due course.

The charity exemption must be easy to implement and enforceable. We are doing a good thing in Scotland by introducing a charity exemption. I think that we have got that right. Of course, stage 2 is coming, and we can have further debates and discussions on that. I am happy to meet members from other parties as we approach stage 2—that offer is open. I already have meetings in my diary with other political parties as we head towards stage 2, and we can discuss any of the issues that members want to raise with me as we move forward.

I am running out of time. Euro 2028 is a massive opportunity for Scotland. To be a host nation and to have this exciting opportunity, we must pass the legislation, as many members have said.

Three million tickets will be available for matches across the UK and Ireland. During Euro 2024, more than 600,000 fans participated in fan walks from designated meeting points to stadiums, creating a vibrant and unified fan experience. Perhaps we will see that again with Euro 2028.

Euro 2024 had around 2.7 million ticket holders across 51 matches, with fans from more than 119 countries. Perhaps we will experience those benefits in Scotland as well in 2028. Euro 2024 had a cumulative global audience exceeding 5 billion viewers. Euro 2028 presents a great opportunity for Scotland to showcase itself, as do the other sporting occasions that I mentioned that will happen over the next three years.

I conclude by thanking members for their speeches.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance, on a motion of legislative competence on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am pleased to open this brief debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the purpose of which is to rectify an oversight.

I regret that the Scottish Parliament has not had more time to consider the supplementary legislative consent memorandum. The original LCM, which covers the vast majority of the relevant provision in the bill, was debated and passed by the Parliament on 26 June. However, it has since become apparent that clause 53(6) of the bill should have been included in the original LCM and motion.

Since the omission became apparent, officials have worked to develop a supplementary LCM covering the oversight, which was lodged on 4 November. Although I accept that that is far from optimal, I am grateful to the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee for suspending the committee’s responsibilities under standing orders to allow the debate to proceed in order to provide Parliament with the opportunity to consider the legislative consent motion before the bill reaches its final form.

Clause 53(6) amends section 25(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 by inserting the words

“or an interim serious crime prevention order”

after “order”. That will put the breach of an interim serious crime prevention order on the same footing as the breach of a full serious crime prevention order, ensuring that there is consistency of approach across the United Kingdom when dealing with those who might seek to circumvent the restrictions that are imposed on them. It is important—indeed, imperative—that we support the extension of clause 53(6) to Scotland, in order to prevent criminals attempting to get around the conditions of an interim serious crime prevention order simply by moving jurisdiction.

In moving the motion, I recommend that the Parliament consent to clause 53(6).

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clause 53(6) on the breach of interim Serious Crime Prevention Orders (iSCPO), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Today, the Parliament is again asked to consider a legislative consent memorandum dealing with the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. As a whole, the bill has given my colleagues—both here and in the UK Parliament—significant concern. Against the tide of illegal immigration, the bill proposes little in the way of solutions. It was reported just this week that 39,075 migrants have made the journey across the channel so far this year. Labour has failed to deal with immigration and securing our borders.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to my colleague for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record the view of many of my constituents that this is a thoroughly badly thought-through piece of legislation. Its most important defect is the repeal of the only measure that has, so far, been put in place to act as a deterrent to people trafficking and to prevent people putting their lives on the line and crossing the English Channel at the behest of some of the most vile and evil people that one can imagine.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Labour’s recent announcement about housing hundreds of asylum-seeking men in barracks in Inverness has alarmed us all due to the questionable suitability of that approach. Instead of being meaningful legislation that will deliver solutions, the bill bulldozes across previous building blocks, such as by repealing key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party continues to be out of touch with public sentiment. The Scottish Government has appeared to offer an open door to illegal immigration, which is an approach that is not in keeping with public sentiment and that would be damaging to Scotland. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist—

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will Tess White take an intervention?

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer, will I get the time back?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Yes, if it is very brief.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Is it the Conservative position that criminals should avoid arrest by simply moving to Scotland?

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is ludicrous of Mr Whitfield to suggest that.

The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, unlike Scottish Labour, remains the only party in Scotland that is serious about restoring the integrity of our borders through proper control—I stress “proper”. However, we also respect the competences given to the Scottish Parliament through the devolution settlement and the functions that are reserved by the UK Parliament. Therefore, despite our significant opposition to the bill, we will abstain in the vote on the motion.

I will take this opportunity to raise my concern about the process that the Parliament has allowed for the passing of the LCM. The Scottish Government has highlighted the serious issue surrounding the LCM; it is fundamentally one of criminality, as Mr Whitfield says. However, due to the lack of time, the Parliament has disregarded the usual standing orders, skipped the stage where a lead committee would thoroughly scrutinise the LCM and brought it straight to the chamber. It is much more than “far from optimal”, as the cabinet secretary says—it is much worse than that. It is the third time that this has happened. The disregard for our standing orders and normal process of methodical scrutiny is of some concern to me and my colleagues. Although I understand that there might be little option left, in the interest of time, I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that disregard of our normal process does not become the norm.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the short debate on the LCM.

Urgent Question

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is an urgent question. To get as many members in as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions, as always, and answers to match.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether the culture secretary will correct the record regarding reports that he told a parliamentary committee that he had not been invited to attend a board meeting of Historic Environment Scotland, despite evidence to the contrary.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I was not aware of any such invitation when I attended the committee last week. Senior officials have now confirmed that they had not advised me of the request from the former chair, as they were seeking to address a number of sensitive matters at Historic Environment Scotland prior to providing me with advice.

Perhaps the most pressing sensitivity was that the on-going investigations at Historic Environment Scotland included one into the conduct of the former chair, Dr Hugh Hall. Subsequent to his request, Dr Hall then indicated his resignation to the Scottish Government, some months prior to the end of his term. That brought the investigation into his conduct to an end and, as a result, his request to meet the board was superseded.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is, frankly, nonsense. The cabinet secretary was invited to meet the board of Historic Environment Scotland. Let us stick with the facts—that is what he was asked to do. The fact that he did not know that he had been invited is a separate matter that I will come on to. However, let us be clear about one thing: the ministerial code requires that ministers

“give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament”

and correct any errors at the earliest opportunity.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that he failed in that duty when he misrepresented the facts to the committee last week? Why did it take a set of courageous whistleblowers and a front-page newspaper story for him to act? Will he now apologise for the serious disservice that he did to the chair and board of Historic Environment Scotland and for undermining confidence in ministerial accountability?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I have discussed the matter with officials today. When I questioned why they did not notify me of the invitation sooner, the reason that they outlined was that it was to protect the independence of the investigation, and I understand that.

In the interests of completeness, I point out that officials have today advised me that Dr Hall requested meetings with the board on 24 July in a meeting and by email on 12 and 29 August. At that time, officials advised Dr Hall that, irrespective of a meeting, I was fully engaged with matters at Historic Environment Scotland. Work has since moved on to supporting the efforts of the new chair, Sir Mark Jones, to resolve the well-documented issues at Historic Environment Scotland and appointing the two new interim board members to support Sir Mark, those being Ray Macfarlane and Susan Deighan.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

This episode has revealed a cabinet secretary who is completely out of touch with events inside his own office and in one of the most troubled public bodies in Scotland, for which he has a responsibility. Does Angus Robertson not see that, by throwing a senior civil servant under the bus to protect himself, he has done lasting damage to his reputation? Will he accept that shifting blame on to officials is no substitute for competence, and that Parliament and the public deserve a minister who is on top of his brief, not one who seems incapable of managing it?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I take very seriously the issues that have been reported at Historic Environment Scotland. I am very clear that, on the whole, HES is an excellent organisation, with hard-working staff who look after one of this country’s most valuable assets—its historic environment.

Scottish Government officials have been working closely with the HES board and leadership team to improve the organisation’s leadership and governance. As a result of that, together with the appointment of Sir Mark Jones, Ray Macfarlane and Susan Deighan, along with a new chief operating officer, I am confident that HES will soon leave these issues behind it and go from strength to strength.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that I have received a number of requests to ask a supplementary question. I will try to get through all the requests.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The serious issues at the top of Historic Environment Scotland are not of Angus Robertson’s making, but it is his responsibility as cabinet secretary to give accurate answers to the Parliament and to fix this mess. Historic Environment Scotland and the cabinet secretary appear to be all over the place, but the one place where Angus Robertson has not been is the HES boardroom. This shambles cannot go on. The cabinet secretary should not be waiting for an invitation to meet the HES board. When exactly will Angus Robertson do his job and meet the HES board?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The answer to Neil Bibby’s question is quite simple. I have made it absolutely clear to Sir Mark Jones that I am happy to meet the board, under his chairmanship, whenever he feels the time is right.

I hope that Mr Bibby agrees that it is right for us to support the incoming chair of the board and his leadership of Historic Environment Scotland. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The chair has to get to grips with a lot of issues at the arm’s-length body, and I assure Mr Bibby that I have told Sir Mark Jones that he has my total support. I have appointed two new interim board members to strengthen the team around him, there should be a new chief operating officer at Historic Environment Scotland, and I have given him the assurance that I will give him any support that he needs. That is the Scottish Government’s position, and I hope that Neil Bibby supports that, too.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I simply do not believe what the cabinet secretary has told the Parliament. However, if we are to believe his argument that he did not know anything about the requests, what action is he taking to investigate civil servants who have withheld information from a cabinet secretary? Does he believe that the reason why such requests have been withheld from him relates to the concerns—which we have heard from members of his party and of his Government—that he is a lazy minister who is not across the detail of his brief?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I make it clear that I asked officials why they did not share the information with me. Although I understand their reasoning, I have been clear that, going forward, I am to be kept informed of any such requests in a timely fashion.

In answer to the question that has been posed to me, the level of engagement between the Scottish Government and Historic Environment Scotland in relation to its problems of governance—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What about you?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Its problems of governance, as an arm’s-length organisation, are extremely serious. We are very closely involved in supporting Historic Environment Scotland, under the new chairmanship of its board, to ensure that it emerges from the challenges of its own making and is able to perform the functions that, I hope, all of us across the chamber believe are its core business.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I take this opportunity to remind all members that we have to listen to the member who has the floor and that we do not need running commentaries or heckling from sedentary positions.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The quality of the protection and care of Scotland’s heritage and history is at the heart of this matter, and it is essential that Historic Environment Scotland has the trust and confidence of the public in that regard. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government is working alongside the new chair to ensure that trust is restored as swiftly as possible?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Paul McLennan has asked a very important question, which relates to issues that I have already narrated to Neil Bibby. We need to ensure that Historic Environment Scotland, under new leadership, has the resources at its disposal to deal with the issues relating to its leadership that have come to public attention. That is why my officials and I have been very supportive in ensuring that Historic Environment Scotland has the capacity to deal with the challenges that it is trying to deal with. That has involved the appointment of a new chairman of the board, which I have undertaken, the appointment of two new interim board members, which I have undertaken, and the provision of support relating to the appointment of a chief operating officer for Historic Environment Scotland.

Those are the appropriate Government interventions to ensure that Historic Environment Scotland is able to deal with the problems that exist in the organisation and to move on and focus on the key role that it performs in our country.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary was quite definite in his response to me and Stephen Kerr in committee that he has neither attended nor been invited to attend any HES board meeting, despite his predecessor, Fiona Hyslop, doing so and despite knowing that the organisation has been in crisis. However, we now know that Angus Robertson’s claims are not true. There was at least one invitation to attend a board meeting.

Stephen Kerr has written to urge the First Minister to refer Angus Robertson to the First Minister’s independent adviser on the ministerial code. Has Mr Robertson spoken with or been in communication with the First Minister about that letter from Mr Kerr, or about the potential of the incident being investigated by the First Minister’s independent adviser on the ministerial code as a breach of that code? Will Angus Robertson refer himself and save the First Minister from having to make that decision?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I have already answered the substantive point that the member raises in my first answer to Stephen Kerr. I was not aware of the invitations to the board, and the record will show that to be the case.

It is up to other people if they wish to launch, take part in or call for investigations. I know that it is the job of Opposition parties to do that. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Lumsden.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I need to make sure that the new leadership of Historic Environment Scotland has the resources at its disposal to get itself through the difficult process that it needs to get through as an arm’s-length body, and that is what I undertake to do as cabinet secretary.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

What does the cabinet secretary think his negligence says to the communities in Dirleton and Melrose, where HES properties are still surrounded by Heras fencing? Is it not the case that if the minister spent more time on his day job and less time adding to his air miles, he might finally be able to fix those problems?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I think that Mr Hoy is aware—I hope he is—that the operational management of Historic Environment Scotland is for Historic Environment Scotland. I share with him the wish that our historic sites are able to be open, and that is why the Government has provided Historic Environment Scotland with the funds. It is only a shame that Mr Hoy voted against that in the budget.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the urgent question.

Motion without Notice

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 4.27 pm.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Decision Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There are two questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-19613, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The final question is, that motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance, on a legislative consent motion on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

We will have a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We come to the vote on motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr McLennan.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies—I could not connect, either. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Robertson.

Liam McArthur has a point of order. We need his microphone to be switched on.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar problem—I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr McArthur.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect, either. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division on motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance, on a legislative consent motion on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, is: For 84, Against 1, Abstentions 23.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clause 53(6) on the breach of interim Serious Crime Prevention Orders (iSCPO), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes decision time. We will move on shortly to the first of this evening’s two members’ business debates.