Back to the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Communities Committee Report
Archive Home

Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports


annexe b: finance committee report

The Committee reports to the Local Government and Communities Committee as follows—


1. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill (“the Bill”) was introduced in the Parliament on 9 November 2007. The Local Government and Communities Committee has been designated by the Parliamentary Bureau as the lead committee for consideration of the Bill at Stage 1. Under Standing Orders Rule 9.6, the lead committee at Stage 1 is required, among other things, to consider and report on the Bill’s Financial Memorandum. In doing so, it is required to consider any views submitted to it by the Finance Committee.

2. In view of the significant costs associated with the Bill, the Committee agreed to adopt level 3 scrutiny. This involves seeking oral evidence from Scottish Government officials and from any third parties likely to be financially affected by the Bill.

3. At its meeting on 11 December 2007, the Committee took evidence from representatives of the Games Organising Committee and Glasgow City Council, and from Scottish Government officials. The Big Lottery Fund Scottish Committee and sportscotland also submitted written evidence at the invitation of the Committee.32 The Committee also received supplementary written evidence from officials33, and a copy of a supplementary note prepared by them for the lead committee. The Committee would like to record its thanks to all of these witnesses.

The Bill

4. The Bill provides Ministers and local authorities with the powers necessary to meet obligations under the Host City Contract for the preparation and hosting of the Games and to deliver the commitments given in the Candidate City File.

5. Immediately after the award of the Games to Glasgow, the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland and the Organising Committee (which is a limited company under the joint ownership of the three aforementioned bodies, and has now been incorporated as ‘Glasgow 2014 Limited’) signed the Host City Contract as required by the Commonwealth Games Federation. The contract covers the obligations of the parties, including fulfilling all commitments contained within the Candidate City File and those made in the bidding process, and Commonwealth Games Federation requirements relating to the Games.

6. The Bill fulfils requirements on the Scottish Government under the Host City Contract to introduce legislation necessary to regulate issues such as marketing, ticket sales, street vending, advertising, traffic regulation during the period of the Games and compulsory purchase of land required for Games purposes. The Bill also provides Scottish Ministers with authority to pay grants and provide other forms of assistance that Glasgow 2014 Limited will need to deliver the Games, and to set conditions on such assistance to ensure that any public investment delivers Ministerial objectives.

Summary of evidence

General issues

7. The Financial Memorandum states that the key financial impact of the Bill will arise from the provision under section 41 to allow Scottish Ministers to provide assistance to Glasgow 2014 Limited. This assistance could take a number of forms, including the payment of grants.

8. The budget, as approved by the Commonwealth Games Federation, consists of expenditure totalling £372.977 million and revenues of £75.140 million, leaving a balance of £297.837 million to be met from public subsidy. The Scottish Government has committed to provide 80% of the net cost, while Glasgow City Council will fund the remainder. The Scottish Government’s contribution is, therefore, estimated at £238million.34

9. To satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation, the Candidate City File included a detailed breakdown of the estimated Games budget. Annex A to the Financial Memorandum provides a summary of the expected revenue and expenditure in the same format. The Committee found this level of detail helpful. However, it does not illustrate the expected profile of the Scottish Government’s funding commitment over the years to 2014.

10. The Scottish Government’s Spending Review 2007 document (pages 58 and 108) states that £3.5, £3.8 and £3.6 million will be spent on revenue costs over the next three financial years (2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11) and £0.6, £2.8 and £8.0 million on capital costs - a total of £22.3 million over the three years.35 In evidence, the Organising Committee indicated that, after a relatively light touch in the next two or three years, there would be a substantial increase in expenditure in the subsequent three or four years. Officials provided helpful supplementary evidence containing a detailed breakdown over the financial years to 2015-16.36

11. The Committee noted that the Financial Memorandum states that the budget is expressed in April 2007 prices, and sought clarification on the expected total cash cost. The supplementary evidence explained that expected inflationary increases are one of the costs already built into the figures presented. It stated that, “The total spend of £373.4 million includes a contingency provision for increase in costs of £40.5 million. The cost of the Games, therefore, at 2007 prices is £332.9 million.”

12. The provisions of the Bill do not, in themselves, require Glasgow City Council to fund a contribution towards the cost of the Games. However, the Council has committed to doing so, and its share is estimated at £60 million. The Financial Memorandum (paragraph 109) states that the Council is committed to using its own resources for this and it is not, therefore, regarded as a consequential cost of the Bill. In evidence, the Council’s executive director of financial services stated that it is not being allocated specific additional resources for this commitment.37 The supplementary written evidence shows that the Council’s contribution will be relatively small in the early years, rising to £7.2 million, £12.5 million and £29 million in the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.

13. The Financial Memorandum states that there are unlikely to be net costs falling on local authorities as a result of provisions such as the use of enforcement powers and traffic regulation. It also states that it is not possible to estimate the cost of the possible exercise of compulsory purchase powers.

14. The Financial Memorandum further notes that the provisions in the Bill will restrict business activity, but only for those seeking to benefit from the Games without authorisation. Glasgow 2014 Limited is expected to charge businesses for street trading and advertising authorisations. Restrictions on road use brought in as a result of the Games Transport Plan may also impact on the business community.

Specific income sources

Commonwealth Games Federation contribution
15. Revenue line 1 of Annex A to the Financial Memorandum shows that the Commonwealth Games Federation is expected to make a contribution of £31.4 million towards the costs (8.4% of the total). Written evidence from Scottish Government officials to the lead committee indicates that the bulk of the £31.4 million is an estimated £29.9 million anticipated income from broadcasting rights, which the Federation will sell. In evidence, the Organising Committee confirmed that, while the sums raised from this source may turn out to be higher than £29.9 million, the risk of not achieving that figure falls on the Organising Committee so the sum is not guaranteed. Officials confirmed that the estimated figure is based on work by consultants, and is a realistic comparison with broadcasting revenue for previous Games. However, they had also increased the contingency in the budget to address the risk of falling short of this figure.38

16. Revenue lines 2 and 5 of Annex A to the Financial Memorandum show that local sponsorship and merchandising are expected to contribute £23.536 million (6.3% of the total costs) and £1.5 million (0.4% of the total) respectively. In evidence, the Organising Committee stated that these were prudent estimates which have the potential to be exceeded. It anticipates that the Games are likely to be well-placed to attract support from companies that are in the sponsorship market but that cannot contribute at the level required to be a major sponsor of the 2012 London Olympics.39 The Committee also notes the officials’ expectation that the Organising Committee will be sensitive to the linkages between certain business sectors and sporting events, and is expected to focus on the financial, information technology and retail sectors for sponsorship.40

Lottery funding
17. Revenue line 6 of Annex A is for lottery income, indicating that this may be a standard expected element of Games funding. However, this line shows a zero entry. In evidence, Scottish Government officials confirmed that “no approach was made for lottery funding”.41

18. The Committee sought clarification on support for the London Olympics 2012 and the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002 from national lottery funds. In evidence, the Organising Committee explained that Sport England, the relevant lottery distributor in England, provided funds for both infrastructure development and revenue costs for the Manchester Games, as well as support for the governing bodies of participating sports.42

19. Scottish Government officials explained that the London Olympics “are supported in part by specific Olympic lottery games, which required primary legislation in the UK Parliament”. They confirmed that, “It was decided that we would not approach the UK Government to seek legislation to enable that in relation to the 2014 Games in Glasgow.”43

20. In addition to these specific lottery games, the Committee notes that a proportion of funds from other lottery games, which would normally be available to be distributed by bodies such as sportscotland, will be re-directed to fund the London Olympics.44 In a written submission, the Big Lottery Fund Scotland states that it has not yet been able to consider fully any additional support it may be able to provide to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, but notes that the context will be set by the impact that the London Olympics will have on the income it has available to disburse post-2009.

21. The Committee notes that lottery funding has already been provided to some of the venues that will host events (and training) for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, and that both the Big Lottery Fund Scotland and sportscotland stated their desire to continue to support participation in grass-roots sport. The provisions of the Bill do not, in themselves, require additional support for sports development. However, at a time when funds will be diverted to the London Olympics, sportscotland emphasised that using the Glasgow Commonwealth Games as an opportunity to build a lasting legacy for sport “will require significant investment”.45

22. The Organising Committee and Scottish Government officials emphasised that they regarded it as a strength that the Glasgow bid relied on an identified commitment to public funding by the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council. The Committee acknowledges this. However, the Committee notes that, notwithstanding the funding assumptions which underpinned the successful bid, the Scottish Government is not now precluded from making a policy decision to try to offset some of that public commitment by seeking lottery funding, allowing more money to be invested in grass-roots sport development in Scottish communities. The Committee strongly recommends that the Scottish Government pursues this issue, and reports to it on progress as soon as possible. The Committee would also expect to see progress reports on this issue in the annual reports of Glasgow 2014 Limited.

Margins of uncertainty and contingencies

23. A Financial Memorandum often presents the possible costs which may arise from a Bill as falling within a range of estimates. The Committee, therefore, sought further information on any uncertainty or risk associated with the estimates provided for this Bill. The Financial Memorandum states that the risk of cost overruns is limited by the nature of the bid, with over 70% of the facilities needed for the Games already in place and under 20% of the budget designated as capital expenditure.

24. The Committee acknowledges that the projected costs have already been evaluated by the Commonwealth Games Federation as part of the bidding process, and notes the Organising Committee’s emphasis that it has taken a prudent and conservative approach to estimating likely income from sources such as sponsorship.

25. In evidence, officials stated that a contingency of £40 million is included in the budget – although this is not separately identified as such in Annex A to the Financial Memorandum. As noted at paragraph 11, this contingency includes allowance for inflationary increases. Officials explained that a contingency level of 20% had originally been provided for the elements of the budget deemed to be most at risk of variance – broadcasting and sponsorship income, and capital expenditure. This had then been revised upwards following discussions during the Commonwealth Games Federation’s evaluation, and is also supplemented by contingencies against other budget heads.46 The Organising Committee stated that it believed the contingency figure to be a thoroughly-considered best estimate.

26. It acknowledged the particular risks of inflation in capital construction projects, noting concerns about the costs of materials and the availability of skilled labour. However, it emphasised that the remaining capital projects are relatively small packages which could be expected to be less subject to significant cost over-runs than major infrastructure projects might be.47 Given the competition from many other significant infrastructure construction projects in the same time period, the Organising Committee stated that it has already begun regular meetings with construction industry representatives to ensure that any possible tendering difficulties, cost pressures and delays are forecast early.

27. The Organising Committee also emphasised that both its own approach to robust corporate governance - and its accountability to a strategic group, chaired by Scottish Ministers, which will consider its annual business plan and ensure that objectives are met – will ensure that any potential cost over-runs are addressed very quickly.48

28. The Financial Memorandum states that, to satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation, the Candidate City File included a number of guarantees, including that Scottish Ministers will meet any potential economic shortfall of Glasgow 2014 Limited arising from the preparations for and the hosting of the Games. In evidence, the Organising Committee confirmed that this guarantee means that any cost over-runs will not be met wholly by the Scottish Government, but will be divided 80-20 between it and Glasgow City Council.49


29. The Financial Memorandum provides a range of information about the expected costs of hosting the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. The Committee found the provision of this full financial context helpful, and sought to examine some of the assumptions and unpredictability relating to these figures. The Committee acknowledges the significant level of scrutiny that the estimates have been subject to so far. It also acknowledges the apparently prudent approach taken to income and expenditure assumptions, and the governance arrangements intended to ensure robust management of delivery.

30. The Committee recommends to the lead committee that it takes account of the issues highlighted in this report when considering its report to the Parliament on the general principles of the Bill.

31. In particular, the Committee draws the attention of the lead committee to its comments in paragraphs 17 to 22 on the possibility of national lottery funding to support the Games. The Committee strongly recommends that the Scottish Government pursues this issue.

annexe c: extracts from the minutes of the local government and communities committee

8th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 7 November 2007

1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take item 4 in private.

2. Proposed Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill (in private): The Committee agreed its approach to the proposed Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill.

10th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 21 November 2007

Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill: The Committee took evidence at Stage 1 from—

Nick Brown, Bill Team Leader, Ian Campbell, Glasgow 2014 and London 2012 Team and David Thompson, Policy Adviser, Scottish Government.

12th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 5 December 2007

1. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take items 6 and 7 in private.

2. Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill (in private): The Committee agreed that further witnesses need not be called to give evidence.

1st Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 16 January 2008

7. Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Stewart Maxwell MSP, Minister for Communities and Sport, Ian Campbell, Glasgow 2014 and London 2012 Team, David Thompson, Policy Advisor and Beth Elliot, Legal Directorate, Scottish Government.

3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 30 January 2008

1. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take items 6 and 7 in private.

7. Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report and agreed certain changes.

4th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 6 February 2008

1. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take items 3 and 4 in private.

4. Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 Report. The Report was agreed to.

annexe d: oral evidence and associated written evidence


supplementary submission from scottish government

During our evidence session on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill at the Committee’s meeting on 21 November 2007 we gave a commitment to respond in writing to a question raised by David McLetchie MSP. Mr McLetchie asked for clarification of what was contained within the Commonwealth Games Federation contribution to the Games Budget and if the expected revenue from the exploitation of Broadcasting Rights was capped.

The Commonwealth Games Federation contribution of £31.4 million comprises:

  • £1.5 million in respect of fulfilling the transfer of knowledge obligations under the Host City Contract; and
  • £29.9 million in respect of estimated income from the sale of broadcasting rights.

The £29.9 million figure is not capped, but neither is it guaranteed. The Commonwealth Games Federation has agreed to pay the Organising Committee the revenue it receives from the exploitation of the television broadcasting rights, the radio broadcasting rights and the internet rights (other than in relation to the Games website) net of any direct sales costs, commission or taxes. Based on guidance by Fasttrack (events consultants) to the Commonwealth Games Federation, broadcast revenues have been estimated at £29.9million. By way of comparison, broadcast revenue reported by the 2006 Melbourne Games was £24.5 million. It is also worth noting that the host broadcasting costs and agency commission has been estimated at £19.3 million which is included within the IBC/HBO expenditure budget heading.

The Games budget includes a contingency of £40.536 million and a risk element around expected broadcasting revenue has been factored into this.


annexe E: other written evidence

submission from aberdeen city council

1. During the consultation on the Draft Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, we offered the response below from our Trading Standards Section which constitutes evidence as to how the principles of the Bill will impact on Aberdeen City Council's Trading Standards Section.

2. "The parts of the Bill that propose prohibitions on unauthorised advertising and outdoor trading and the unauthorised sale of games tickets are likely to be enforced by Trading Standards professionals as it fits closely with the work that we already do. If it is decided to nominate trading standards professionals as enforcement officers then the following issues need to be considered:

Extent of Enforcement Powers
3. Although unauthorised advertising and outdoor trading will only be prohibited in the vicinity of games venues the other offence relating to ticket touting could take place anywhere. Trading Standards professionals are employed by local authorities and are authorised to enforce legislation only within their own local authority boundaries. Therefore consideration will need to be given to ensure there are sufficient enforcement officers throughout the country and not just in local authorities with games venues. Alternatively enforcement officers could be granted powers to enforce the legislation throughout a wider area for the period the Act is in force.

4. The proposed penalty for obstruction of an enforcement officer is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. This penalty is less than that proposed for the other offences and may lead to a situation where someone committing an offence obstructs an officer so that evidence relating to illegal trading is not discovered. I would suggest that the penalty for obstruction equals the highest available penalty for a trading offence, that is a fine not exceeding £20,000".

Douglas Paterson
Chief Executive
Aberdeen City Council
21 December 2007

submission from the advertising association

1. The Advertising Association (AA) is a federation of 31 trade bodies and organisations representing the advertising and promotional marketing industries, including advertisers, agencies, the media and support services in the UK. It is the only body that speaks for all sides of an industry that was worth over £19 billion in 2006. Further information about the AA, its membership and remit, can be found at the following location:

Introduction & Summary
2.1 The AA congratulates Scotland on its success in winning the bid to host the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014.

2.2. The AA welcomes the opportunity to respond to this call for evidence by the Local Government & Communities Committee (LGCC) of the Scottish Parliament in light of its appointment to conduct Stage 1 scrutiny of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, as introduced into Holyrood on 9 November 2007.

2.3. The AA well appreciates that this consultation by the LGCC pertains only to the contents of the Bill and thus to the provisions aimed at combating ambush marketing through restricting the physical location of advertising. Given, however, that the material published by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) refers to some of the issues around the creation of new intellectual property rights in order to address ambush marketing through the creation of an association right, the AA has also attached an Appendix to this submission on that subject.

2.4. The AA considers it important for the LGCC to be aware of the concerns of the Association about both sets of anti-ambush marketing measures set out in Paragraph 2.3 of this submission above. The AA anticipates that this submission should assist the LGCC in its consideration of whether the proposals of the Scottish Government are proportionate. The AA has also proposed to the LGCC the inclusion of a series of safeguards that should go some way towards off-setting those provisions within the Bill and any other legislative measures around intellectual property rights that the Scottish Government might seek which would be most damaging to the advertising sector in Scotland and the UK more widely.

2.5. In summary, in this submission to the LGCC, the AA proposes that the Bill should, on its face:

(a) specify the maximum duration of any advertising regulations issued under any eventual statute;

(b) incorporate a definition of “vicinity”;

(c) provide for media exceptions covering advertisements appearing in cinemas, newspapers, magazines and those on television, radio, mobile telephony and other electronic media that happen to be seen, read or received in the “vicinity” of Games events;

(d) include a duty to consult with the advertising industry on any secondary legislation issued under any eventual Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act (and establishing how long such consultation should last);

(e) introduce an advertising defence; and,

(f) contain a provision ensuring that any advertising regulations eventually issued will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Holyrood.

2.6. Attached to the main body of the submission is an Appendix with the self-explanatory title of “Concerns of the AA around the proposal of the Scottish Government to pursue an association right for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998”. The AA appreciates that the association right issue falls outside the scope of the LGCC’s remit, but the Association considers that it is, nonetheless, not unreasonable for the Committee to request some justification from Scottish Ministers about why the pursuit of such an intellectual property right is necessary. This is because the existing body of law covering intellectual property would appear to be adequate and the creation of an association right appears to be absent from the contractual requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF).

2.7. In the event that Scottish Ministers are able to justify the creation of such an association right to the LGCC, the AA would respectfully request the Committee seek a commitment on the part of Scottish Ministers to closely involve industry in its development from the outset. The AA would also ask that any Order passing through the Westminster Parliament be subject to the affirmative procedure.

2.8. The Appendix also incorporates a short case study of the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002 that considers the conclusions drawn by the members of the brand protection team at the event as to why they had been successful in combating ambush marketing both at the physical proximity and intellectual property level.

2.9. The AA is not seeking for any part of this submission to be treated as confidential.

3. Detailed comments of the AA on the content of the Bill as it relates to advertising

3.1. Overview
3.1.1. The AA supports the principle that the rights of sponsors should be protected, but that this needs to be achieved in a fair and balanced manner and not disproportionately impact upon the rights of other legitimate businesses that have absolutely no interest in engaging in ambush marketing.

3.1.2. Consequently, the AA considers it important to note at the outset that the Association is not in principle opposed to the Scottish Government supplementing legislatively the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.8) in order to meet any contractual obligations it may have to the CGF aimed at protecting the rights of sponsors. This AA support is premised, however, on such legislative measures being proportionate and strictly time-limited in nature. The comments and recommendations the AA makes to the LGCC below are intended to ensure that such proportionality is achieved.

3.2. Request for clarification as to the effective duration of advertising regulations
3.2.1. The AA is of the view that the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill should incorporate on its face an indication of the maximum duration of any advertising regulations that may be issued under any eventual statute. This is so as to provide the advertising industry with the greatest degree of certainty about how the restrictions will apply and in particular how certain sites may or may not be used. The AA notes that, according to the Candidate City File for the Glasgow bid, the Games are scheduled to commence on 23 July 2014 and close on 3 August 2014. Furthermore, the AA notes that the CGF appears to require that the restrictions on the physical location of advertising additionally have effect in the fortnight preceding the opening of the Games. Thus the regulations would need to come into force on 9 July 2014.

3.2.2. Of the material published by the Scottish Government thus far, no end date for the regulations governing the physical location of advertising appears yet to have been specified. The AA would recommend that the end date for the regulations governing the physical location of advertising be the day after the closing ceremony, in other words: 4 August 2014. Certainly, the AA is of the view that it would be difficult for the CGF and the Scottish Government to justify the continuation of the advertising regulations for a period more generous than the International Olympic Committee requires in respect of the 2012 Games (which is for five days after the end of that event). Whatever the contractual requirements set by the CGF, the AA would respectfully recommend that the LGCC ensures that the Scottish Government does not seek to gold-plate upon its obligations by requiring Ministers to specify the applicable dates on the face of the Bill. The advertising regulations should apply only for such time as is necessary for the Scottish Government to secure compliance with any contractual obligations imposed by the CGF.

3.2.3. Alternatively, and less preferable from the perspective of the AA, the LGCC could recommend to Scottish Ministers that they make a statement specifying the applicable dates for the maximum duration of the advertising regulations in the course of the passage of the Bill. In this context, the AA considers it notable that during the Parliamentary passage of the draft Olympics legislation the Minister-in-charge of the Bill in the Commons – Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP - confirmed what the maximum period was during which the advertising regulations (issued under any eventual statute) would apply. [Official Record, Commons, 18 October 2005, Columns 71-81].

3.3. Request for inclusion of a definition of “vicinity”
3.3.1. Despite numerous references to the concept of “vicinity” within the Bill, no definition of the term in respect of the controls on advertising is provided in the draft legislation. The Scottish Government has stated only that any restrictions will be designated in secondary legislation to be issued much nearer to 2014 and “vicinity” defined then. In practice this could mean that the concept will not be clearly defined until early in the year itself of the 2014 Games, when Scottish Ministers must have set out the detailed provisions of the advertising regulations as Clause 46 (“Notice”) of the Bill requires. The AA is of the view, however, that a definition of “vicinity” should be incorporated on the face of the Bill, perhaps within Clause 48 (“Interpretation”), as without it the sector the Association represents will be left with a significant degree of uncertainty – most notably owners of outdoor advertising sites. In this regard, the AA considers that the Statement within the Policy Memorandum on the effects of the Bill on the business community understates its true impact. (See also the AA’s comments in Paragraph 3.3.4 of this submission below on the concerns raised by Glasgow City Council.) The AA would therefore respectfully request that the LGCC make a recommendation to Scottish Ministers that they define “vicinity” on the face of the Bill.

3.3.2. Although the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) also fails to contain any definition of “vicinity”, during the Parliamentary passage of that statute, the Minister-in-charge of the Bill in the Commons – Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP – clarified the intention of the Government behind the term. He stated then that: “When we talk about vicinity, we mean a few hundred metres.” [Official Record, Commons, 18 October 2005, Column 78]

3.3.3. It would be helpful then, in the event that it is not possible to incorporate a definition of “vicinity” on the face of the Bill, were the LGCC to recommend that Scottish Ministers offer a similar clarifying statement (to that given by the Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP in Westminster) during the passage of the draft legislation through Holyrood. The AA would argue that it would be difficult to justify a more generous definition of “vicinity” around any Commonwealth event than will apply in respect of an Olympic one, which (as can be seen above) has been defined as within 200-300m of a Games venue. (The AA would, however, re-state its preference for a suitable definition of “vicinity” appearing on the face of the Bill.)

3.3.4. The AA shares the concerns expressed by Glasgow City Council that the advertising restrictions will impact on legitimate businesses carrying out their day-to-day commercial activities simply as a consequence of their location. (These concerns are set out in Paragraph 28 of the Government response published by the Scottish Executive to the consultation it conducted on the draft Bill.) Although Scottish Ministers responded by stating that the advertising regulations will allow for such businesses to continue to conduct their ordinary day-to-day business provided that these do not directly conflict with the Games, the AA considers that drafting the secondary legislation in such a way will be extremely challenging. From the experience the AA derived from working in the course of 2005 and 2006 to off-set the detrimental impact of the Olympics legislation, Scottish Ministers will also need to take account of the contractual implications for branded venues of any events it may propose to hold in such places or indeed located in the “vicinity” of other Games venues.

3.3.5. One area that the AA is reassured by, however, (given the absence of any reference in the material published and/or made available thus far by the Scottish Government), is that Ministers north of the border intend to adopt a far more proportionate approach than their counterparts in London in respect of transport-related advertising at the 2012 Olympic Games. Although the Scottish Government states that the CGF requires advertising on public transport to be controlled, it makes no such claim in respect of transport hubs or routes (and presumably any private vehicles travelling along them). Such transport hubs or routes could potentially be great distances away from the actual Games venues themselves as will be the case at the time of the 2012 Olympic Games – in respect of, for example, certain major airports. The AA has always regarded the advertising restrictions the UK Government intends to introduce around transport hubs and routes for the 2012 Olympic Games as excessive and the Association is therefore reassured by the apparent decision of Scottish Ministers not to proceed down the same (disproportionate) avenue.

3.4. Request for inclusion of media exceptions from advertising regulations
3.4.1. During the passage of the Olympics Bill, the AA expressed concern that certain non-broadcast and broadcast advertising media could inadvertently fall foul of any regulations directly governing the physical location of advertising or falling within the meaning of “vicinity”. The non-broadcast media categories in question were newspapers and magazines containing print advertisements as well as mobile phones and other electronic communications devices upon which commercial communications might be received. The broadcast media in question were television and radio sets, which happened to receive advertisements. The UK Government recognised these concerns as valid and offered reassurances during the passage of the Olympics Bill that any secondary legislation eventually issued governing advertising in the vicinity of venues would grant the necessary exceptions to such media. [Relevant Ministerial references by Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP and Lord Davies of Oldham can be found in Official Report, Commons, 6 December 2005, Column 809 and Official Report, Lords, 2 February 2006, Column 224 respectively.] Whilst these binding Ministerial reassurances were welcome in respect of any secondary legislation that may eventually be issued under the 2006 Act, the AA would respectfully request that the LGCC recommend to Scottish Ministers the inclusion of such exceptions on the face of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill.

3.4.2. Depending on how Scottish Ministers quantify the concept of vicinity there might also be a risk that advertisements exhibited on cinema screens located close to venues could fall foul of any regulations issued under Clause 10 (“Ban on advertising in the vicinity of Games events”) of the Bill. This would be despite the fact that such advertisements would only actually be seen by those individuals located within the enclosed space of the cinema. In respect of the Olympics legislation, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport offered reassurances to the Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) after the passage of the 2006 Act on this subject. (Clearly it would have been preferable for the CAA to have received a more formal Ministerial reassurance during the Parliamentary passage of the Bill before Royal Assent was signified.)

3.4.3. In light of the issues raised above and to offer the greatest reassurance to the advertising industry, the AA would repeat its respectful request that the LGCC recommend Scottish Ministers incorporate a sub-clause within Clause 10 to the effect that any advertising regulations would provide exceptions for cinema, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, mobile telephony and other electronic media. The AA notes that the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society (SDNS) argued in terms similar to the Association in its own response to the consultation by the Scottish Executive earlier in the year on the draft Bill. As an alternative, albeit less preferable option, the LGCC could recommend that Scottish Ministers make a statement to the above effect during the Parliamentary passage of the Bill.

3.5. Request for inclusion of a duty to consult with the advertising industry
3.5.1. The AA would respectfully request that the LGCC recommend to Scottish Ministers that a specific duty be placed on the face of the Bill requiring the Scottish Government to consult with the advertising industry when drawing up any secondary legislation governing the physical location of advertisements.

3.5.2. For the purposes of comparison it is noteworthy that the 2006 Act contains just such a duty within sub-Section 20(3)(b) (“Regulations: supplemental”). Section 20(3) provides, in respect of any secondary legislation issued under the 2006 Act, that: “Before making regulations under section 19 the Secretary of State shall consult - …one or more persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent interests within the advertising industry which are likely to be affected by the regulations,…”. (Section 19 of the Act is the one entitled “Advertising regulations”.)

3.5.3. Sub-section 20(3)(b) was added to the Bill on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers & Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) of the House of Lords in its 11th Report of Session 2005-2006 (HL Paper 95). In light of the conclusions drawn by the DPRRC (whilst accepting fully that Holyrood is of course an entirely independent legislature) the AA would respectfully request that the LGCC propose Scottish Ministers incorporate a similar duty on the face of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. The AA considers that the most appropriate location for the placement of such a duty on Scottish Ministers would be via the addition of a sub-clause to Clause 44 (“Consultation”) of the Bill.

3.5.4. Additionally, the AA would respectfully recommend to the LGCC that it call on Scottish Ministers to specify on the face of the Bill that each period of consultation should last no less than twelve weeks in line with the normal approach of the Scottish Executive towards consultation. Alternatively a statement to this effect could be made by Scottish Ministers during the passage of the Bill through Holyrood. The AA considers it notable that the Minister-in-charge of the Olympics Bill in the Lords – Lord Davies of Oldham – provided a similar reassurance in respect of the minimum duration of consultation on any statutory instruments impinging on advertising during the Parliamentary passage of that draft legislation. [Official Report, Lords, 6 March 2006, Column 608]

3.6. Request for inclusion of an advertising defence
3.6.1. The AA welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to place minimum safeguards within the Bill around the enforcement powers that could be granted under it (not least given the implications of the draft statute for human rights) following the calls by the Association, various police bodies and a number of local authorities. The AA is of the view, nevertheless, that further enhancements in this area could also be made. In particular the AA considers that the Bill should provide for statutory defences (over and above the media exceptions requested in section 3.4 of this response) to cover certain circumstances when the advertising regulations might inadvertently be breached by an individual. The AA would recommend that such a defence be modelled upon that contained within Section 21 (“Offence”) of the 2006 Act. The AA would respectfully request that the LGCC recommend to Scottish Ministers that the Bill incorporate such a defence.

3.7. Request for advertising regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure
3.7.1. The Scottish Government argues in Paragraphs 28 to 37 of the Delegated Powers Memorandum published alongside the Bill that when the advertising regulations come to be made nearer to the time of the Games they should be subject only to the negative resolution procedure in Holyrood. By comparison, the AA would have the LGCC note that within the 2006 Act, any regulations concerning the physical location of advertising will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Westminster Parliament as a consequence of Section 20 (“Regulations: supplemental”). The AA considers that given the impact on the advertising industry in Scotland, particularly those engaged in outdoor advertising, equivalent regulations issued under any eventual Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act should be subject to a similar level of scrutiny in Holyrood, rather than (essentially) none as Scottish Ministers currently deem acceptable. The AA would therefore respectfully request that the LGCC recommend to Scottish Ministers that Clause 43 (“Orders and regulations”), which relates to procedure in respect of secondary legislation issued under any eventual Act, be amended so as require that any regulations issued under Clause 10 (“Ban on advertising in the vicinity of Games events”) be subject to the affirmative procedure.


Concerns of the AA around the proposal of the Scottish Government to pursue an association right for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998

A.1 Background
A.1.1. The AA would reiterate the sentiment the Association expressed in Paragraph 3.1.1 of this submission that the rights of sponsors should be protected, but that this needs to be achieved in a fair and balanced manner and not disproportionately impact upon the rights of other legitimate businesses that have absolutely no interest in engaging in ambush marketing.

A.1.2. The AA is firmly of the view that the existing body of law covering intellectual property rights in the UK will provide more than sufficient protection to sponsors at the time of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014 and in the run-up to them.

A.1.3. In addition to being unnecessary, the AA is deeply concerned that the creation of an association right for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, as Scottish Ministers currently propose, is disproportionate and risks damaging the wider advertising sector by introducing intellectual property rights over words and numerals in common usage. In so doing, association rights intentionally create an atmosphere of legal doubt for companies engaged in legitimate advertising having no desire to create any misleading or false associations with sponsored events, thereby impacting detrimentally upon the advertising economy. The AA anticipates that the association right contained within Section 33 (“London Olympics association right”) of the 2006 Act is (and will continue to have) precisely this UK-wide effect. The same UK-wide effect would be created were equivalent rights granted to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games thereby perpetuating the problems identified above.

A.2. Adequacy of existing body of law covering intellectual property rights
A.2.1. The AA notes that it was but one of a number of stakeholders that took the view that the existing body of law in the UK was sufficient to combat ambush marketing, based on the Government response published by the Scottish Executive to the consultation it conducted on the draft Bill. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), for example, pointed in its response to that consultation exercise to the existence of The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (c.48) and the criminal sanctions recently attached thereto. (The relevant reference within the Government response document referred to above is Paragraph 78.)

A.2.2. The AA fully agrees with COSLA and would argue that the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c.29) - from which the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/915) (as amended) partly derive - together with the common law of “passing off” should be added to the list of relevant legal protections here.

A.2.3. As COSLA, the AA and other organisations with an interest in intellectual property law that responded to the consultation are aware the 1988 and 1994 Acts are subject to amendment and the 1968 Act to partial repeal as a consequence of Directive 2005/29/EC “on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices” imminently coming into force in the UK. The protections to sponsors afforded by those three Acts (and the 1988 Regulations) should be substantively enhanced as a consequence of implementing Directive 2005/29/EC and (re-)implementing Directive 84/450/EEC “concerning misleading advertising” (as amended by Directive 94/44/EC to cover comparative advertisements and since codified as Directive 2006/114/EC).

A.2.4. The secondary legislation implementing these two Directives will be the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, which are due to undergo their Parliamentary passage in Westminster early next year. Both these sets of Regulations are scheduled to come into force throughout the United Kingdom on 6 April 2008. Thus sponsors of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games will be protected by an even more stringent legislative regime than the one enjoyed by their counterparts at the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002 – an event which was widely regarded as successful. (A very short contextual case study of the Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002 can be found at the end of this Appendix.)

A.2.5. Indeed, despite comments made elsewhere to the contrary, the Scottish Government itself appears to consider that existing statute is adequate, based on its response to the calls by the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland (CGCS) for additional legislative protection for Games Intellectual Property Rights. The Scottish Government responded to this call by stating that “Current law will already protect the Games Intellectual Property rights.” (The relevant reference is Paragraph 76 of the Government response published by the Scottish Executive to the consultation it conducted on the draft Bill.) The AA agrees entirely with the view expressed by the Scottish Government in response to those calls by the CGCS and, consequently, cannot understand why it establishes almost immediately after that statement that its Ministers intend to pursue additional legislative protection for the event in the form of an association right.

A.2.6. Thus the AA considers that the body of law set out above is more than sufficient to provide protection to official sponsors against ambush marketers seeking to give the impression that they are somehow associated with the Games and misleading the public into the belief that they are an authorised partner or otherwise officially connected with the event somehow. To reiterate, the AA can detect no gaps in the laws relating to intellectual property that could be exploited by potential ambush marketers, particularly given the opportunity for the Scottish authorities to seek trade mark protection, for example, over the official marks for any Glasgow Commonwealth Games. This fact should serve to ensure that potential sponsors are not deterred from signing up to support the Games.

A.2.7. The AA anticipates that there is a far more important calculation which potential sponsors in certain product categories such as food, soft drinks and alcohol (from which the Scottish Government states it will be seeking pecuniary support according to the Financial Memorandum appended to the Explanatory Notes) will be making as to whether to invest in sponsorship or not. This is a decision about the degree of risk they are ready to accept by investing in sponsorship ahead of the Games were further restrictions placed on their ability to advertise their support for the event around their brands in the run-up to and come 2014 as a consequence of possible changes in UK-wide public policy towards advertising their products.

A.3. Apparent absence of contractual requirement to introduce an association right
A.3.1. Of the material to which the AA has had access thus far, which includes the CGF Brand Protection Games Manual (BPGM) but not the Host City Contract itself, the Association can find nothing that would contractually require the Scottish Government to introduce an association right for the Commonwealth Games. The BPGM of the CGF states only that Commonwealth Games imagery and indicia should be protected by law [Section 3.0, page 10, BPGM]. As the AA has argued (as did a number of other organisations in their responses to the consultation by the Scottish Executive on the draft Bill earlier in the year), such protection can be achieved through the existing body of law covering intellectual property rights.

A.4. Media concerns over effect of an association right on editorial content
A.4.1. Whilst not an advertising issue per se, the potential effect of an association right on editorial content is one that is of interest to those AA members in the commercial broadcasting and publishing sectors. During the Parliamentary passage of the draft Olympics legislation, the media raised similar concerns around the way in which the association right it created risked impacting upon editorial content. In this context the AA fully endorses the comments made by the SDNS and outlined in Paragraph 77 of the Government response published by the Scottish Executive to the consultation it conducted on the draft Bill. The SDNS raised the importance of any association right created around the Commonwealth Games providing for exemptions / exclusions to ensure that there is no restriction on references to the event in any form of editorial usage. The Scottish Government responded in its document to the concerns of the SNDS by stating that the issue would be considered during the development of such a provision, yet commercial broadcasters and publishers both in Scotland and UK-wide would clearly sooner Scottish Ministers make a binding commitment to this point of principle at the very earliest opportunity. The AA would argue, however, that no such association right should be created in the first place.

A.5. Safeguards: justification to LGCC; consultation with industry; and, procedure
A.5.1. As is clear from the arguments advanced by the AA in this Appendix, the Association considers that there is no justification for Scottish Ministers seeking an association right for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

A.5.2. It is clear, however, that despite the case for not doing so, Scottish Ministers nevertheless still at the present time intend to pursue one. In such circumstances the AA would respectfully recommend to the LGCC that it require Scottish Ministers to provide the Committee with a comprehensive justification as to why the existing body of law covering intellectual property rights is insufficient to protect the Games and its sponsors.

A.5.3. If on the basis of the evidence offered by Scottish Ministers, the LGCC is persuaded that the creation of an association right is necessary and proportionate then the AA would respectfully request that the Committee recommend Scottish Ministers enter into the following two commitments.

A.5.4. Firstly, that the LGCC request that civil servants within the Scottish Government, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the Department for Innovation & Skills and any other individuals within official bodies with an interest in this matter to identify themselves and work closely with the advertising industry to ensure that its legitimate concerns are suitably addressed. The objective of this would be to ensure that any association right that is drafted is as balanced as possible between the rights of all interested parties, which would include the majority of legitimate businesses that risk being detrimentally affected by it in Scotland and indeed throughout the UK.

A.5.5. Secondly, the AA would respectfully request that the LGCC recommend to Scottish Ministers that any Order laid before the Westminster Parliament under Section 104 (“Power to make provision consequential on legislation of, or scrutinised by, the Parliament”) of the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46) be subject to the affirmative procedure in that place. Even with an affirmative procedure in place, any association right delivered through such an Order passing through the Westminster Parliament will receive considerably less Parliamentary scrutiny (in terms of time) than did the equivalent one for the Olympics in the 2006 Act. In the view of the AA, the affirmative procedure would be necessary in any case, given that the creation of additional new intellectual property rights is controversial in nature as was borne out in the Parliamentary debates during the passage of the draft Olympics legislation. This Parliamentary scrutiny would be necessary, in the view of the AA, irrespective of whether Scottish Ministers delivered on the request made by the Association in Paragraph A.5.4 of this submission above.

Case Study: Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002

The last time the Commonwealth Games were held on UK territory was in Manchester in 2002. As identified previously, the body of law then did not include the additional protections afforded by the secondary legislation that will come into force on 6 April 2008 throughout the UK. It is therefore interesting to note the experience of and the conclusions drawn by the brand protection team at those Games responsible for combating ambush marketing, which succeeded in attracting Manchester Airport, Adecco, Guardian Media Group, Cadbury, Cussons, Rover, Microsoft, ASDA and BUPA as sponsors.

The conclusions drawn by the brand protection team can be found in Volume 3 of The Manchester Commonwealth Games 2002: Post-Games Report published by the Organising Committee for that event. In that document the team responsible for brand protection concluded that they had been very successful in combating ambush marketing. The brand protection team was of the view that this success had been achieved by relying solely on the intellectual property rights they enjoyed over the official marks for those Games and introducing (with Manchester City Council) restrictions on planning permission for temporary structures and prioritising action against illegal poster sites.

Jim Rothwell
Senior Public Affairs Manager
The Advertising Association
20 December 2007

submission from british telecom scotland

1. Our comments on the draft Bill are limited to sections regarding Games Transport Plans (section 31), Games Traffic Regulation Orders (section 32) and Urgent Traffic Regulation Measures (section 33.) We wish to ensure that any measures taken do not affect the ability of engineers to maintain access to crucial services such as 999 and care helpline numbers, as well as to service nearby businesses and residential customers that rely on telecommunications. As you will appreciate any loss of telephone service can have serious repercussions both to the individual – particularly the elderly and vulnerable and to the viability of businesses many of which simply cannot operate without telephone and internet access.

2. The engineers requiring access would, in the main, be from BT Openreach, the group responsible for “the last mile” of cabling from exchange to the end user. Whilst Openreach is part of the BT Group, they must offer equal pricing and service to all providers of telecommunicationsandarestrictlyprohibited from giving preferential treatment to any of BT’s commercial operations.

3. There are 4 key points we would like to make:

  • Whilst we appreciate the need for streets to be closed off to ensure the smooth running of the games, Openreach engineers will still need access to certain streets, with vans in most cases, in order to carry out essential maintenance to services. In addition, some maintenance may require specialist equipment onsite which may cause security concerns. We would be eager to discuss such practicalities at the earliest possible stage and, in addition, would like to be involved in drawing up the Games Transport Plan to ensure that such issues can be addressed.
  • We also believe it may be appropriate for the Bill to stipulate that access must be permitted for essential utility maintenance, which would also cover electricity, water, gas and any others felt appropriate. This is a particular concern relating to the Games Traffic Regulation Orders and Urgent Traffic Regulation which, as the Bill is drafted, seem to be able to be issued without any restrictions at all. Whilst we appreciate the need for maximum flexibility on the ground, we believe it may be appropriate to consider some kind of mechanism to inform or consult essential utility providers.
  • In the event that closures are necessary and engineers denied access, BT Scotland and Openreach would require maximum warning so as they could inform customers and potentially find other ways of addressing problems. As part of this, Openreach would consider setting up a presence in the heart of the Commonwealth area so that they were able to communicate effectively with planners and other key officials.
  • Finally, we have a number of practical questions which would like to discuss with officials from either the Scottish Government or the Commonwealth Games team (perhaps both in a joint meeting) as soon as possible:

    - Would BT staff need to be trained and accredited in specific security matters if they were working within the proximity of events?

    - Will there be a requirement for method statements describing how work will be carried out?

    - How will the process for vetting of staff being given access operate?

    - If restrictions require work to be carried out outwith normal hours who would meet the extra financial cost – this would include charges raised against us by customers if service level agreements are not met.

Ian Shanks
Head of Scottish Affairs
BT Scotland
20 September 2007

supplementary submission from british telecom scotland

I would like to emphasise that serious problems could arise if access to areas of Glasgow are restricted in such a way that we are unable to maintain essential services. This could have an impact on public safety and on commercial organisations. Any interruption to service would restrict access to emergency services via 999 calls, similarly few businesses can operate successfully if they lose their telephony and internet services, telephone lines are also essential for security alarms, emergency lines in lifts, personal alarms in sheltered accommodation etc.

Ian Shanks
Head of Scottish Affairs
BT Scotland
27 November 2007

submission from capability scotland

1. Capability Scotland is one of the country’s leading disability organisations working for a just Scotland. We work with children, adults and families living with disability to support them in their everyday lives. We also work with disabled people, family members and carers to influence legislation, policy, practice and attitudes.

2. Given the scope of this first call for evidence, we have limited our comments to the area identified in the policy memorandum as potential having direct consequences for disabled people and a general thought on the committee’s approach to the bill.

3. Capability Scotland welcomes the chance to respond to this initial call for evidence on the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill. It is important that the 2014 Games are inclusive and accessible for disabled people. We note and welcome the recognition in the policy memorandum that the transport plan for the games could have potential effects on access for disabled people and the assurance that this will be fully considered by the Organising committee. We would urge that disabled people themselves are involved at every stage of this work to ensure that the final transport plan helps disabled people from across Scotland access and enjoy the games while not placing restrictions on their ability to travel for other purposes.

4. More generally, we would urge the Committee to consider the needs and requirements of disabled people when considering and scrutinising the bill’s functions in areas such as ticket sales and trading in the variety of games venues. The committee have a valuable role to play in making sure every event at the games is barrier-free.

Neil Cardwell
Policy Officer
Capability Scotland
24 December 2007

submission from fife council

1. The Council is of the view that the measures on the whole appear to be reasonable. There is, as yet, no confirmation that any events will take place outwith Glasgow in areas such as Fife and it is difficult therefore to provide comment on the impact locally which the measures envisage the Bill may have for Fife.

2. From an economic development perspective, however, the Council would wish to make the following comments in relation to the potential economic impacts and for necessary infrastructure:-

  • consideration should be given by the Scottish Government to the dissemination of information to the business community on the likely business and employment opportunities that will arise from the implementation of the Bill as preparations for the supporting infrastructure for the Games begin. There are likely to be considerable business and employment opportunities for the construction and engineering sectors and areas outwith Glasgow itself should be offered opportunities for contracting and sub-contracting tenders;
  • consideration could also be given to local employment opportunities in the area which is likely to benefit from the regeneration that the infrastructure for the Games will bring. In Fife, the development of local labour agreements associated with development activity is proving to be highly successful in generating local employment opportunities;
  • the business community should also be provided with clear guidance on the processes and opportunities to become sponsors, authorised traders, developers and contractors to ensure that all businesses are aware of the opportunities afforded by the Games.

Harry Tait
Head of Law and Administration
Fife Council
17 December 2007

submission from glasgow chamber of commerce

1. Glasgow Chamber of Commerce (GCoC) welcomes legislation to ensure the successful delivery of the Commonwealth Games and that looks at measures to control elements such as ambush marketing, street vending and the use of advertising space.

2. In delivering a response representative of our membership base and the Glasgow business community, GCoC circulated the consultation to a selection of our members and raised general awareness through features in the GCoC magazine and website. We have also worked with other Scottish business support organisations in formulating a response.

3. In addition, it should be recognised that some GCoC members may choose to comment on the consultation directly.

4. GCoC supports the Commonwealth Games bid and, recognising the potential benefits of the Games, actively works with the Commonwealth Games bid team to create opportunities for business engagement and participation. While broadly supporting the Draft Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill, a number of specific comments are outlined below:

5. Section 2. Ban on trading in the vicinity of Games events

  • Need for clearer definition of the legislative impact to private car parks and traders such as catering vehicles.
  • The times at which a trading offence can take place should emphasise whether it is during the period of the Commonwealth Games or if legislation is only enforced while an event occurs in a specific locality.

6. Section 3. Trading activities

  • There is a need to define those activities treated as trading.

7. Section 4. Authorised trading

  • Under the conditions for authorisation there needs to be a clear definition of what conditions can be imposed on the trader, unlike the description in 2(b) and 3(c).
  • As outlined in (4), those applying for authorisation need to currently hold a prescribed form of trading licence, however there needs to be clarity on the process for new traders.

8. Section 6. Existing trading licences

  • If those with current trading licences are liable to prosecution during the Commonwealth Games then the licence holder should be notified in advance of the legislation being enforced.

9. Section 8. Guidance and information about trading

  • The guidance notes and information should be issued within a specific period prior to the Games.

10. Section 11. Authorised advertising

  • A number of the 'more onerous' conditions outlined in the Draft Bill should be clearly classified (i.e. monetary or other).

11. Section 13. Existing advertising licences

  • As with the comment under section 6, there should be advanced notification and considerations to any loss of income incurred.

12. Section 16. Sale of ticket for face value or less

  • It is likely that a number of tickets to Games events will be offered as corporate hospitality which is not clearly defined in the legislation.

13. Section 21. Enforcement powers

  • Consideration to the impact of 'enter and search' on daily business operations.
  • 1 (b) outlines that an officer may 'destroy' an article they believe is being used in a Games offence, however this is a drastic course of action unless an offence is proven to be taking place (noted that section 25 does ensure compensation if no offence was committed).

14. Section 25. Compensation and recovery of costs

Compensation should also cover advertising and trading and not focus purely on section 21 (1).

15. Section 31. Transport plan

Under (2), other key stakeholders including business should be consulted.

16. Section 32. Games traffic regulation orders

  • It would be beneficial to set up an advanced notification system for any Games traffic regulation orders, allowing road users to make suitable arrangements i.e. similar to the CITRAC system used by Glasgow City Council.

17. Section 33. Urgent traffic regulation measures

  • Comment as in section 32.

18. Section 35. Organising Committee: assistance

  • (2) should emphasise the importance of opportunities for local business.

19. Section 36. Acquisition of land for Games purposes

  • Under land 'suitable for and required in order to facilitate the holding of the Glasgow Games 2014', the impact on business located in these areas and also the impact on any development planned/approved should be considered.

20. Section 38. Consultation

  • Key stakeholders including business should also be consulted.

21. Section 45. Short title

  • GCoC would ask for consideration to amend the Bill making it applicable as a general Act for major events.

22. GCoC welcomes the development of the Draft Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill and we look forward to continuing to engage with other partners in securing the 2014 Commonwealth Games to showcase Glasgow and Scotland on the world stage and deliver lasting economic and social benefit.

Dr Lesley Sawers
Chief Executive
Glasgow Chamber of Commerce
18 September 2007

supplementary submission from glasgow chamber of commerce

I am writing to you to express our interest in engaging during the Local Government and Communities Committee's consideration of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill.

Glasgow Chamber of Commerce played a key role in the city's successful bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games and will continue to work to ensure strong business engagement ahead of and during the delivery of the Games, maximising the opportunities and benefits to Glasgow's and Scotland's economy.

David Ross
Project Director - Glasgow Chamber of Commerce
7 December 2007

submission from gold seal home care ltd

1. Firstly may we congratulate Glasgow City Council for securing the Commonwealth Games. We appreciate this is a marvellous achievement and a huge stage letting the rest of the world know how great Glasgow is.

2. However, success can bring its problems and unfortunately we have been experiencing a serious problem due to the games. We operate our business from the site proposed for the competitor's village. Although this on its own is not a problem that cannot be overcome. What is a major problem is the manner the council are handling the negotiations to relocate and compensate our business. Any negotiation we had have been one step forward two back. We have been kept in the dark as to time scales and the level of compensation thus denying us the opportunity to continue our successful growth.

3. Our company has grown steadily since its conception in 1988 when we had four employees. Currently we have 61 full time employees plus a further 30 self contracted personnel engaged in sales and marketing. This success has been achieved by careful planning and recognising the changes in the very competitive market we trade in.

4. Since September 2004 we have been strangled by the prospect of the Commonwealth Games. It was part of our expansion programme to extend our existing factory by 7000 Square Feet. We choose to extend rather than move because we have the available space and more importantly the majority of our workforce are local to the East End or Glasgow. We very soon discovered we would not be granted planning permission for this project due to any future development if Glasgow were to be successful with their bid forthe games.

5. This gave us an immediate problem as we had taken advantage of an opportunity to purchase a package of automated machinery which would enable the company to be one of the front runners in our industry. This plant is currently in storage at considerable cost and denying us the massive savings which must be made if we are to compete in the commercial side of our business.

6. In addition to this problem the Council indicated that we have a ransom strip to the front of our site which would massively reduce the value of our property. We took legal advice on this matter and obtained a QC's opinion. We have been reluctant to exchange legal opinions with the Council because they disclosed confidential information to a Third Party, a property developer the Council are proposing to enter into a joint venture with. We were however assured the Council would have their Legal Department check out this problem and come back to us. Nine months later, still waiting!

7. Our last meeting with the Council on Tuesday 13 November with the games now in the bag we were told there still was no time scale to relocate us. On the compensation side they wanted us to settle on the heritage claim before entering intonegotiations on the disruption claim. We are not prepared to do this as we need to know the overall figure to enable us to know whether or not we can afford to move. The valuation the Council has come up with falls short of our expectations and with the current build costs fora new factory it would not be a viable proposition.

8. We find it incredible that the Council representative can not provide us with any information at all. We have our own thoughts on this!

9. We appreciate the Commonwealth Games will create many new jobs in the area but what about the existing jobs? If the Council continue to conduct themselves in this far from professional manner then there is a serious danger of up to 100 jobs being lost.

10. Instead of encouraging our business to protect and expand our workforce the Council are acting in a negative and deceitful manner. From a feeling of Euphoria when it was announced we would be competing forthe games to a feeling of despair now that we have been "successful".

Kieran Kurdell
Managing Director
Gold Seal Home Care Ltd
3 December 2007

submission from hm inspectorate of constabulary for scotland

1. As this is the first opportunity to provide comment since Glasgow was awarded the Games for 2014, I shall focus my response not only on those elements contained within the Bill but the wider context in which they are set.

2. The aspects of the bill designed to combat ambush marketing are relatively straightforward but serve to remind us of the opportunities for large-scale economic activity. Sadly as we know these opportunities will have been similarly recognised by those whose economic activity is of a criminal rather than legal nature. Accordingly increased police resources will have to be deployed to combat this issue whether through exploitation of the unique demands for labour and materials or tackling more general fraud.

3. Equally although the provisions within the Bill to deal with ticket touting are non-complex, there are wider and associated matters in relation to the design and packaging of tickets that could reduce the risk accompanying the large movements of people into and throughout Scotland in 2014.

4. Similarly to the above, the provisions as they relate to traffic regulation and compulsory purchase are straightforward depending of course on the strength and nature of public opinion that their deployment will foster.

5. The financial element of the Bill (Section 41) highlights two issues;

  • The scale of public money being provided to support the Games, particularly when the integral infrastructure projects are included; and
  • The fact that the governance structure will wish to be provided with the best possible professional advice to support its decision making.

6. Focusing on the security element of this structure and considering that the Scottish Government has agreed to underwrite any increase in costs beyond the figure contained within the bid, then it is clear that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in particular, will wish to be assured that;

  • The security plan represents an effective response to the risks posed by the Games.
  • The plan represents good value for money from conception to deployment.
  • The plan maximises opportunities afforded by concurrent issues such as the logistical build-up to the Olympic Games in 2012 and the developing structures to deliver protective services across Scotland.

7. The above is particularly pertinent since Glasgow’s subsequently successful bid pre-dated the terrorist incident at its airport. It is in this context that an early and comprehensive review of the security plan should move the current ‘bottom-up’ estimate of costs to one that incorporates a clear strategic lead on how security should look and feel throughout the Games.

8. Although additional to the agreed work plan for HMIC, the provision of independent advice on the above matters is an area that I consider HMIC is well placed to provide. Equally importantly and as I hope that I have demonstrated within this submission, it is essential to consider security as a theme running through all aspects of the Games delivery plans.

9. The lessons learned from managing similar events across the world indicate that the creation of early, consistent and clear governance structures will support better decision making and hence optimise the potential for the Games to be the success that I am sure we would all wish them to be.

submission from network rail

1. Network Rail considers it has a key role to play in supporting the delivery of the Games and is confident if clarity is provided in the near future on what is required and the necessary resources and finance are identified and applied at an early stage the rail industry should be able to deliver what is required of it.

2. At this stage the discussions we have had with the Games team have been at a relatively high level with their requirements given in outline. The outline requirements are not yet fully developed and require more specification before Network Rail and others in the rail industry such as First Scot Rail can take a view on the delivery elements associated with this. We have written to Glasgow 2014 and suggested that we meet with them in the next few weeks to begin the process of understanding in detail what will be required of the rail industry. Only at that stage will we be in a position to determine what constraints there may be on delivery. At that time I would propose that we will provide you with further comments if this is acceptable to the Committee.

3. In the meantime however, based on the discussions held to date and our reading of the draft Bill, there are a number of areas of concern that we would bring to your attention at this stage:

4. Power to enter land -Section 25
Given the risks associated with entering onto operational railway land. I have concerns that the powers included in the Bill give "enforcement officers" acting on behalf of the Games, powers to "enter any place". There are proper procedures that must be followed for very good health and safety reasons before anyone can enter operational railway land and this must continue to apply in order to protect the safety of railway users and officers. Access to the railway can be only given via Network Rail and the established safety procedures must be followed. I believe the Bill should require any officers to adhere to these procedures.

5. Transport Plan –Section 37
We note that the Transport Committee are required to consult on their proposals for their Transport Plan. Given the importance of the railway to any transport plan, we believe that key industry players such as Network Rail, the lead Train Operating Company (currently First Scotrail) and Freight Operating companies should be included in the Bill as organisations to be consulted.

6. Compulsory acquisition of land for Games purposes -Section 42
Based on the preliminary discussion with Glasgow 2014, it is likely that a number of the works proposed for the Games may involve infrastructure alterations such as providing full DDA compliance at certain stations and potentially lengthening of platforms at a number of locations to accommodate longer trains. Such works are likely to require additional land and it is therefore important to point out that Network Rail has no general powers of land acquisition.

7. We note that the Bill makes provision for amendment to part 8 of the Town and Country Plannjng Act to allow for the compulsory purchase of land for Games purposes. The view may be taken that the powers proposed in section 42 of the Bill are sufficient to address any land assembly needs but we would suggest it may be helpful to all to remove any element of doubt by catering for this specific possibility.

8. As explained above, Network Rail js not yet in a position to confirm the detail of what will be required given the lack of specification at this time. We would simply note that we do not have powers to acquire land and if land was to be needed to support new stations, platform extensions, access, etc this would need to be provided and therefore the Bill organisers must ensure there are powers to do this and that those powers are clearly applicable and can be used without challenge.

9. It is also worth noting that such changes will involve station and network change issues and even possibly Train Operating Company franchise change which are regulated not by the draft Bill but rather by the Railways legislation which is generally a reserved matter with some exceptions.

Ron McAulay
Director, Scotland
Network Rail30 November 2007

submission from north lanarkshire council

1. These observations are made from the standpoint that, Strathclyde Country Park in MotherwelI, operated by North Lanarkshire Council (NLC), will be the venue for the Triathlon Events at the Games.

2. Observations are made in seriatim with the section numbering in the draft bill.

3. Sections 2 to 9 -Trading

  • There are a number of commercial businesses currently trading within Strathclyde Country Park on sites leased to them by NLC. One of the businesses on site and close to the Triathlon Course is the Express by Holiday Inn, an international brand.
  • Another, namely M&D's Theme Park, lies immediately adjacent to the Triathlon Course, operates extensively outdoors and is highly visible, with permanent signs in place.
  • In view of their location and proximity to the proposed Triathlon Course it is likely to prove undesirable and probably impractical to prevent continued trading and some exemption/authorisation will be required.
  • Consideration will also need to be taken of this Council's in-house trading operations which take place as an integral part of the operation of the Country Park.
  • Given the scale and nature of the Park, and the event course within it, clear guidance and definition of what is to be understood by the term "in the vicinity of a Games Event" will be necessary.

4. Sections 10 to 16 -Advertising

  • Similar to the points made above, the commercial businesses that operate in Strathclyde Country Park have permanent and internationally recognised signage in place, some of which relate to concessions that operate within the sites, eg soft drinks, alcohol, and coffee branding - all household names and instantly recognisable.
  • In view of their location and proximity to the proposed Triathlon Course, it is again likely to prove undesirable and probably impractical to prevent continued advertising and some exemption/authorisation will be required.
  • NLC's own logos and branding are highly prominent within the site, and consideration of these will be needed in the context of "advertising". It is considered that NLC should be permitted to advertise itself and it's own events within the park without authorisation.

5. Sections 17 to 20 -Ticket touting No Comment

6. Sections 21 to 40 -Enforcement, Trial & Punishment and Transport

  • The Act and Regulations made will have to be mindful of the need for regulations and enforcement officers to operate in more than one local authority area.

7. Sections 41 to 51 No Comment

June Murray
Executive Director of Corporate Services
North Lanarkshire Council
19 December 2007

submission from passengers’ view scotland

1. Passengers View Scotland( PVS) is the working name of the Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland, a statutory advisory body established under the Transport( Scotland) Act 2005 to consider and make recommendations to the Scottish Ministers about any matter relating to public transport services in, from or to Scotland. These comments have been prepared by the Policy Environment Working Group of PVS and approved by the whole Board.

2. We very much welcome the fact that the Bill requires the Organising Committee for the Games to develop a transport plan and in doing so to consult widely. However our view is that it would be appropriate for the Committee to be more strongly encouraged towards developing a plan that fulfils the aims of the National Transport Strategy of reducing emissions and providing better quality transport services that are a realistic alternative to the car. The wording of the Bill as it currently stands (clause 37) is wide enough so as not to exclude such matters, but especially since the following clauses refer only to traffic regulation, we consider that explicit reference to the National Transport Strategy's strategic outcomes, or perhaps simply to public transport and other modes of travel, would be beneficial.

3. We would also observe that in developing the transport plan it will be important to consider not only the situation during the Games, but also the position for the many people involved in preparing for the event and for the longer-term position afterwards, as well as incidental issues such as policing. Moreover the plan needs to bear in mind the needs of passengers not just in the immediate vicinity but across Scotland and to and from Scotland since good transport links will be essential if the benefits of the Games are to be felt across Scotland. We look forward to being kept informed of how the Organising Committee intends to ensure that its plans do reflect the needs of passengers.

Emma Sinclair
Passengers’ View Scotland Secretary
Passengers’ View Scotland
21 December 2007

submission from ppc developments

1. By way of background I am the managing director and the controlling shareholder of Progress Property Development Company (PPD). PPD specialises in regeneration developments and its development portfolio is principally located in Scotland and England. PPD owns part of the site which has been designated for the Commonwealth Games Village development. My company is in negotiations with Glasgow City Council to be a development partner in respect of all the land owned by GCC and PPD.

2. In my submission, it is essential in order to minimise the capital risks involved in the proposed village development it is necessary for there to be the earliest possible commencement to this development. In my opinion it is therefore important that the remaining site assemblage is completed very quickly as this would then enable the masterplan and the remediation works to commence in 2009. In order to achieve such a timetable I believe that the proposed powers that are to be given to Councillors and Ministers particularly in respect of Games traffic regulation orders road use regulations and compulsory purchase orders all require shorter timescales than currently govern existing legislation. In particular for the land assemblage where I believe there are still three sites to be agreed, the use of a compulsory purchase order as a last resort may be required. My reasoning is that from my experience when land/building owners seek un-justifiable terms for a disposal of their land they usually use delaying tactics to frustrate any development with the sole purpose of obtaining a higher consideration than which they would normally be entitled to. This is particularly relevant where a development has a finite timescale for completion such as the Games Village.

3. I therefore propose that when considering this Act that the timetable for the notices and valuation hearings for the compulsory purchase of land and/or buildings should be as follows:-

4. Assuming the normal pre-conditions for CPO have been satisfied which I suggest should be firstly that the land and/or buildings are required specifically for the Commonwealth Games; that there is clear evidence in writing that a formal offer has been made to the land owner at a figure which is equal to or above the market value of the owner's building/site taking into account all the circumstances. Subject to the above if agreement cannot be concluded within three months from the grant of the Order the failure to agree the consideration shall be referred to a Third Party to determine the value of the proposed transfer and such determination has to be concluded within three months.

5. Should the site/building owner be unhappy with the decision of the Third Party then the usual rights of appeal would be available on the basis that the land/buildings would be transferred upon payment of the consideration determined by the Third Party and any balance owing would be payable with statutory interest upon conclusion of the further determination upon the hearing of an appeal.

6. The shorter timescales referred to above would in mysubmission ensure that land owners could not hold the Council to ransom due to time constraints. The benefit ofthe shorter timescales is that the masterplan could be concluded and the site remediation works started early enough to ensure that the budgeted building prices were not exceeded due to insufficient time for development.

7. I particularly refer to the experience that I gained from visiting the Melbourne 2006 Games Village. I had the opportunity to meet the developers and to hear first hand the challenges that they faced when they ran out of time because the remediation works turned out to be incomplete even though they were assured by Melbourne Council that the site had been cleared. More recently, in London similar problems have been encountered at the site of the Olympic Games Village where the timescales are tight because of the increased amount of remediation works that are now required. Both of these examples are I believe tangible evidence that where sites are contaminated and require a large amount of remediation an early development start is essential. To achieve this the land assemblage needs to be concluded very early on.

8. In summary, whilst 2014 seems a long way ahead for the completion of a development of this type in reality in my view it is only just long enough for the site to be assembled and the development to be completed at a reasonable cost. Although my representation is made specifically in respect of the compulsory purchase aspects of the Bill as referred to above I believe the principles should apply to any other aspects of the proposed legislation. In this latter regard I believe the committee should be mindful of the necessity to ensure that the time limits in this proposed legislation are kept as short as possible whilst at the same time protecting people's rights and in particular to receive an adequate level of compensation in respect of land being acquired under compulsory purchase powers. Finally I have assumed that these powers may also apply to sites or buildings elsewhere in the city where they are specifically required for the Commonwealth Games.

Charles I Price
Managing Director
PPC Developments
19 December 2007

submission from scottish enterprise

1. In response to the consultation on the Commonwealth Games Bill, Scottish Enterprise is supportive of the Bill in its current form.

2. Most of the regulations specified do not have a direct impact on the activities of Scottish enterprise. We are however, one of the major supporters of the Bid, contributing over £1m and are involved in a range of other areas related to the Bid.

3. We are currently in discussions with other partners to establish processes to ensure Scottish businesses have opportunities to engage with the Games, in terms of sponsorship, procurement opportunities, etc.

4. The regulations in the Bill appear to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation and do not hinder legitimate business involvement in the Games.

5. Scottish Enterprise is also a partner in the Clyde Gateway project where the Games Village will be located, along with other Games infrastructure.

6. In terms of provision in the Bill relating to transport and acquisition of land, I can confirm that we are comfortable with those and believe they are proportionate.

Jack Perry
Chief Executive
Scottish Enterprise
10 December 2007

submission from scottish institute of sport

Might I suggest that you may wish to maximise the full benefit that the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games can bring to Scotland by considering extending the powers of the Bill to the following area:

Legislation that supports releasing volunteers, athletes and coaches working on the Games to be released from work for training purposes and specific periods during the Games.

This would allow us in Scotland to encourage a number of development initiatives which could have a longstanding legacy for Glasgow and its network.

Mike Whittingham
Executive Director
Scottish Institute of Sport
10 December 2007

submission from scottish police authorities conveners forum

1. The Conveners Forum was originally consulted on this Bill in July 2007 by the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Bill Team specifically in regard to the proposed creation of new enforcement offences. This response will also limit itself to issues surrounding enforcement offences.

2. Our earlier response indicated concerns in regard to the ability of the Organising Committee to employ any person and thereafter designate them as Enforcement Officers for the duration of the Games in addition to the proposed utilisation of designated Trading Standards Officers (TSO s). Concern was also voiced in regard to the extent of enforcement powers being proposed. Unfortunately these concerns have not been addressed in this version of the Bill as introduced to Parliament.

3. In addition to the designation of TSO s, Clause 22 (1)(b) of the Bill indicates that the Organising Committee may designate an individual as an Enforcement Officer only if (the individual) “…meets such other criteria as may be specified in the enforcement regulations.” Significant powers are being proposed for Enforcement Officers and there remains concern, that in the absence of such regulations what conditions may be placed in regard to issues such as: checks on the background character of individuals; previous relevant experience; and the proposed training schemes to allow such individuals to effectively carry out the role of a ‘trained and accredited’ TSO for the duration of the Games.

4. Further concerns relate to Clause 25 of the Bill in regard to the proposed ‘Power to Enter and Search’. Paragraph 78, page 15 of the Policy Memorandum accompanying the Bill indicated that, “The power to enter a house can only be exercised with permission of the occupier or a warrant from a sheriff, at reasonable times and, in either case, when the officer is accompanied by a constable. Power to enter other premises can only be exercised with permission of the occupier, under warrant or when accompanied by a constable”.

5. Clause 25 of the Bill, ‘Power to Enter and Search’ states that;

(1) An enforcement officer may enter and search any place —

(a) if the officer reasonably believes a Games offence has been or is being committed,


(b) which the officer reasonably believes has been or is being used in connection with a Games offence.

(2) An enforcement officer may take to a place entered by virtue of this section any other

person, or any equipment, as may be reasonably required for the purposes of assisting

the officer.

(3) An enforcement officer who enters a place in pursuance of this section must take

reasonable steps to leave the place at least as effectively secured against unauthorised

entry as the officer found it.

6. While Clauses 26 & 27 deal with ‘Use of Reasonable Force’ and ‘Further restrictions on entering homes’, and both reflect the statements made in paragraph 78 of the Policy Memorandum, Clause 25 is silent on the conditional power of search granted by permission of the ‘occupier’. Section 48 (b) states that, ‘(a house) does not include any yard, garden garage, outbuilding or other similar area or structure.’ Some of these places may not be classified as having an ‘occupier’, though they may well have an ‘owner’. This section of the Bill requires clarification. As it stands the wording of Clause 25, to ‘enter and search any place’, appears to confer authority on the Enforcement Officer that is not intended by the Policy Memorandum.

7. In addition, while Clause 31 of the Bill deals with ‘Compensation and recovery costs’ from the Organising Committee, in giving Enforcement Officers these considerable powers the absence of systems being in place to respond to public complaints, or allegations of misuse of authority, do not seem to have been considered. Police officers, and indeed TSO s on secondment, will be subject to their own codes of conduct in respect of their personal actions. However no consideration appears to have been directed towards a complaints handling procedure, or management sanctions, in regard to the actions of Enforcement Officers designated by, and directly employed, by the Organising Committee.

8. Given the very high profile that will arise from the Games, there is every likelihood of instances of complaint or conflict arising as the Enforcement Officers carry out their necessary duties.

9. In closing, the Conveners do support the principles of the Bill, and see them as a necessity for the success of the Games. However in relation to the section of the Bill on ‘Enforcement’, they believe, that in consideration of the above there is a need to further review the criteria for designation of Enforcement Officers, the wording of Clause 25 of the Bill on the ‘Power to Enter and Search’, and issues surrounding complaints handling procedures in respect of Enforcement Officers directly employed by the Organising Committee.

David Higgins
Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum
21 December 2007

submission from scottish police federation

1. The Scottish Police Federation welcomes the success of Glasgow in attracting the Commonwealth Games 2014.

2. The Scottish Police Federation has a general concern about the creation of private police forces which are unanswerable to the local community through the Chief Constable, the Police Board and, ultimately, to the legislature and believes that any private force appointed, even for limited duration, should be answerable to the public in similar manner. We believe that it would be better if all policing were to be entrusted to the Police Service but recognises that, jn this particular instance, it would be pragmatic to accept the appointment of a policing body that exists out with the structure of the publicly accountable Police Service.

3. The Scottish Police Federation does not consider it appropriate that private bodies should appoint members of private police forces and considers it an important point of principle that any such appointments be made by a public body, such as the Scottish Ministers or the City Council. We consider that the importance pertaining to this arises not only from the importance of policing being an activity governed by public bodies and executed in the public interest but also because the authority Of any individual “private police officer” should be seen to stem from the concept of service to the public rather than service to a private organisation. This has particular relevance to Section 22(1), by virtue of which Enforcement Officers are to be persons designated as such by the Organising Committee which, in terms of Section 1(3) is a limited company. We recognise the practical considerations (not least the potential protection of the public purse from unlimited losses from an activity such as the Games) inherent in the formation of a limited company to organise the games but we consider that appointment to any policing activity should be by the Council or some similar public body.

4. As presently framed (particularly Section 2), the Bill does not seem to envisage the possibility of “illegal” trading occurring indoors, the specific exclusion of trading in a building from the definition of “the trading offence” (see Section 2(2)) means that any illegal trader with the wit to rent a property close to a Games venue and trade from it contrary to the spirit of the Bill would be exempt from penalty Such activity could not be a justification for exercise of the power to enter and search contained in Section 25 because that power relates to the commission or suspected commission of Games offences and trading from within a building would not be an offence.

5. The Scottish Police Federation considers that, if the legislature can envisage circumstances in which trading without authorisation could be permitted, it should simply state that trading is permitted in those circumstances The alternative is that an enforcement officer (who would ultimately have the right to call for police support) would have the task of determining when something specifically declared to be an offence should be overlooked or, to express it otherwise, when the primary legislation should be disregarded. Apart from potential unfairness to the individual enforcement officer, this creates a potential problem for any police officer called to assist in enforcement of the enforcement officer’s decision but who disagrees with his judgement Similarly, it creates potential for uneven application of the law by leaving so much to the discretion of enforcement officers who would have had little training in the application of law and m when it would be appropriate to exercise discretion The officer dealing with any situation is unlikely to be able to determine whether profits are genuinely to be donated to charity (see Section 6(2) (d)).

6. The Scottish Police Federation considers that Section 11(2) is far too widely drawn i for example, would prohibit churches from using their normal notice boards or distributing parish bulletins by virtue of the words “promoting an other concern” m Section 11(1) It is inappropriate that organisations such as churches would have to depend on the exercise of discretion in terms of Section 14 to avoid punishment for breaking the law.

7. The Scottish Police Federation considers that the criteria for appointment as an enforcement officer should be contained within the primary legislation rather than m subsidiary regulations (see Section 22(2) (b)).

8. We consider that the use of the word “enforce” in Section 23 may be an error since prevention and punishment are the purposes of the Act.

9. The Scottish Police Federation anticipates that police officers would be the group called upon to provide “any other person as may be reasonably required for the purposes of taking action” under Section 23(4) but, as worded, the Section gives enforcement power to persons who have not been subjected to any scrutiny by the public or by any body acting on behalf of the public This creates the possibility of enforcement officers recruiting on an ad hoc basis, thus placing in potential danger those called upon to assist them in enforcing what is, ultimately, a right to private profit We have grave reservations about both principle and practice on this issue.

10. The Scottish Police Federation reiterates its concern that the only judgement of the actions of the enforcement officer is whether the enforcement officer considers those actions “appropriate” (Section 23), this places the enforcement officer beyond criticism, which contrasts significantly with the position of the equivalent officers m other spheres and with the position of police officers, who must justice their actions before courts and before Misconduct Hearings, this concern is prompted by concern for the public interest and by concern about the level and quality of training available to inform the judgement of enforcement officers The comments made here apply with equal force to Sections 24(1) and 24(5).

11. In respect of Section 25 of the second draft of the Bill, the Scottish Police Federation reiterates concerns previously expressed with reference to Section 21 of the first draft Bill.

12. The Scottish Police Federation approves of the changes made to the former Section 21(4) now contained in Section 26 of the second draft Bill and considers that the public interest against use of force by persons not qualified to judge the need for same is safeguarded by the requirements of a warrant from the Sheriff and the concurring judgement of a police constable.

Joe Grant
General Secretary - Scottish Police Federation
18 December 2007

submission from scottish power energy networks

1. The key points that we would like to comment on are as follows:-

2. Section 25 The power to enter and search.

Whilst we believe that there will be no requirement for an enforcement officer to enter any Scottish Power substation or grounds, if the need arises then we would expect that on the grounds of safety, the emergency contact number which is displayed at each location be used prior to any entry due to the potential safety risk that the enforcement officer could be exposed to.

3. Section 37 Transport Plan
Section 38 Games Traffic Regulation Orders
Section 39 Urgent Traffic Regulation Measures
Section 40 Power to direct Councils to Regulate Road Use for Games

4. We would like to ensure that any measures taken under these sections do not affect the ability of our employees and or contractors to maintain supplies to our network on a 24/7 basis during the period of the Games.

5. Whilst we appreciate the need for roads to be closed off during the games, our employees and or contractors will still require access to certain roads in order to facilitate any repair, maintenance and the continuity of our electricity network. In most cases the staff will require to have their vehicles with them and under certain circumstances we would require to have specialist equipment on site that may cause some security concerns.

6. In the event that closures and restrictions are necessary and our employees or contractors would be denied access, then Scottish Power would require maximum notification of this so that we could inform our customers and have our own backup plans in place for any such event.

7. Section 42 Compulsory Acquisition of Land for Games Purposes
If there is any land that will be acquired for the purpose of the games, then we would like you to consider the proximity of any of Scottish Powers plant that may be on or adjacent to the land. This could be overhead lines, underground cables or substations.

8. Finally, Scottish Power would be eager to be involved in drawing up the Games Transport Plan to ensure that the above issues can be addressed.

submission from spt

1. Introduction
1.1 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is the Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) for the west of Scotland. It is one of seven RTPs established by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. SPT retains many of the transport powers and functions which were previously exercised by Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority / Executive.

1.2 The SPT area comprises the following Council areas: East Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Glasgow City, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and the Helensburgh and Lomond area of Argyll and Bute. The SPT area is home to 2.14 million people, covering 6,969 square kilometres, and with a population density of 307 people per square kilometre.

1.3 SPT has a variety of policy, planning, strategy and operational functions. Of primary importance is a statutory obligation to prepare a Regional Transport Strategy for the west of Scotland. This draft Strategy, which covers a 10-15 year timeline, is multi-modal in scope, and was submitted for approval to Scottish Ministers on 31 March 2007.

1.4 With respect to policy, planning, including community planning and operational functions, SPT’s role involves planning and delivering transport solutions for all modes of transport across the region, in conjunction with its member Councils and industry partners. SPT has a central role in transport planning for the region including analysing travel needs and developing the transport system for now and the future.

1.5 SPT has direct operational responsibilities, such as running the Subway and certain bus stations, including Buchanan Bus Station, supporting local bus services and managing integrated ticketing. SPT has a role in promoting and developing projects to meet the region’s needs, such as the Glasgow Airport Rail Link.

1.6 SPT is a public body with a Partnership Board, comprising of 27 members representing the 12 constituent unitary authorities in the West of Scotland plus other interested parties. Of the 27 members, 20 are democratically elected Councillors nominated from member Councils and seven appointed members, appointed by the Scottish Ministers.

1.7 SPT is committed to ensuring that the Commonwealth Games in 2014 is a success for Glasgow, the region and the whole of Scotland. We look forward with the Scottish Government, the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland, Glasgow City Council, other member councils across the west of Scotland and our industry partners in delivering transport for the Games that meets the needs of athletes, spectators, visitors and residents. Where possible, we would wish to maximise the legacy opportunities for the transport system in the west of Scotland that such a prestigious event as the Commonwealth Games offers.

1.8 In terms of planning and operational responsibilities, and experience and resources, SPT is well placed to assist in delivering transport for the Games.

2. Comments on the Commonwealth Games Bill
2.1 SPT submitted a response on the Draft Commonwealth Games Bill to the Scottish Government during the consultation in September 2007.

2.2 With regard to section 37, while SPT welcome the inclusion of a commitment (at section 37 (2) (c)) to consult ‘any other person whom the Organising Committee considers appropriate’, SPT seek a specific commitment to, as a minimum, consult the relevant Regional Transport Partnership — in this case, SPT —on the Transport Plan for the Games, given that commitment is made to consult at national level (Scottish Ministers) and at local level (‘every Council in whose area a Games event takes place’). Further to this, we would recommend that provision is made within the Bill for SPT to have approval of the Plan prior to adoption.

2.3 SPT has a core responsibility to prepare and deliver the statutory RTS, in partnership with member councils and other public and private sector stakeholders. The RTS contains a commitment within its Target Programme to undertake transport planning for the Games. SPT therefore have a vital role to play in co-ordinating, facilitating and delivering transport for the Games. As acknowledged by the Policy Memorandum for the Bill (paragraph 55) the Games are likely to have significant effects on the transport system outwith the boundary of Glasgow City Council. The transport sections of the Candidate City File also acknowledge this fact. SPT have significant experience in transport planning and delivery, and are ideally placed to ensure ‘buy-in’ for the Games Transport Plan from affected Councils, transport operators, and other RTPs (SESTRAN and TACTRAN).

2.4 The Financial Memorandum for the Bill (paragraph 108) includes a reference to Glasgow City Council wishing to convert ‘Games Lanes’ to ‘bus priority lanes’ after completion of the Games. This may have a significant effect on the transport system of the city region, and it is therefore vital that SPT is a ‘statutory consultee’ and has approval of the Games Transport Plan to ensure alignment with the objectives of the RTS. While supportive of the introduction of Games Lanes, and bus priority lanes, their introduction is likely to have a significant impact upon the flow of traffic around the city region. SPT would seek to work with all relevant agencies and operators to ensure that Games Lanes do not negatively impact on the wider transport network during the Games, and after the Games that their continuation as bus priority lanes adequately meets the needs of the travelling public.

2.5 SPT would further seek that section 37 (2) (b) is revised to ensure that every council in whose area transport services or infrastructure may be affected by the Games Transport Plan is consulted. The transport impacts of the Games may affect areas outside the Glasgow City Council area, whether hosting an event or not, and it is therefore vital that all potentially affected Councils are consulted.

2.6 SPT note within the Policy Memorandum for the Bill (ibid, paragraph 57) that reference is made to Games Lanes being ‘directly supported’ by ‘pro-active working with developers and utility companies’. In addition, and as noted in para 2.4 above, SPT would emphasise the need for close working with SPT and transport operators to ensure the needs of the travelling public are taken into account.

2.7 With reference to section 42 of the Bill, SPT welcomes this section, as some of the transport initiatives necessary for facilitating successful delivery of the Games may require compulsory purchase of land. However, we seek assurance that strengthening of these powers for the Games will only be used, as noted in the Policy Memorandum (ibid, paragraph 70) ‘to ensure that any land required to deliver the Games can be brought within public ownership’, and will therefore not apply to land which is already in public ownership.

3. Conclusion
3.1 SPT welcomes the introduction of the Commonwealth Games Bill and is committed to working in partnership with the Organising Committee in delivering transport for the Games. As the RTP for the area in which the Games takes place, SPT expects to be fully involved in the planning and delivery of transport for the Games, ensuring the event is a success, and that legacy opportunities are maximised for future generations.

John Halliday
Assistant Chief Executive – Transport and Strategy
20 December 2007

submission from scottish rugby union

1. The issue of ‘black market’ tickets for sporting organisations and event promoters is now not as simple as it once was. Whereas previously a handful of tickets might have changed hands outside a ground for a few pounds over face value, things have now moved on. Increasingly two of the key issues facing event organisers are:-

  • The inclusion of black market tickets within unofficial hospitality packages (and the impact this has on the core revenue streams of the event organisers); and
  • The increasing incidence of internet ticket touting.

2. Ticket touting and the black market is something which Scottish Rugby believes could best be tackled in partnership with the legislators, other event organisers and the police - thereby providing a rounded solution which would allow an equitable distribution of available match tickets whilst protecting the revenue streams required for investment into sport.

3. We understand that at present there is discussion in England with a view to extending the current English anti-touting legislation, which addresses ticket touting in relation to football matches, to include other events. We are hopeful that Scotland will not be left behind in this regard.

4. The current Commonwealth Games Bill provides a possible framework for a Scottish solution to the problem of ‘touting’, and Scottish Rugby believes that the opportunity should be taken at this time to deal with the problem in the context of sport as a whole and not just in respect of the Games.

5. This document seeks to briefly outline the specific concerns of Scottish Rugby in this area and to provide a possible solution which could be applied to other sporting events.

6. Black market ticketing and unofficial hospitality
Tickets for big games at Murrayfield are a scarce commodity with, for instance, no public sale possible this season for the 2008 Scotland v. England game once the requirements of prior rights holders have been met (all of the tickets being allocated on a controlled basis to clubs, schools, debenture holders and others). Where tickets are available for Scottish Rugby events (i.e. after our prior rights holder’s requests have been satisfied) it is the policy of Scottish Rugby to make such tickets available for public sale on an equitable basis. The conditions under which match ticket are sold by Scottish Rugby do not permit resale of the ticket by the purchaser. Tickets are issued for the personal use of the purchaser and they then are not allowed to sell on the ticket for profit.

7. Despite the best efforts of Scottish Rugby to ensure that the tickets go to genuine rugby supporters, each year several thousand tickets enter the black market (for resale in contravention of the conditions of their issue).

8. Whilst the perception can be that black market ticketing centres purely around the sale of individual tickets to genuine supporters wishing to attend key games, there is a growing problem with the use of tickets as part of an ‘unofficial hospitality package’. These unofficial packages, which bundle a black market ticket with e.g. pre-match drinks , a meal and transport to the game, are now believed to number well over 2,000 covers in respect of key games such Scotland v. England .

9. This bundling of the ticket into a package disguises that the ticket itself is being sold at a huge mark-up over face value and encourages those who would not normally consider buying a black-market ticket to buy these packages because they seem more organised and official.

10. The Internet
A more well understood issue is the growing impact of internet sites which offer the ability to buy/sell tickets in contravention of their conditions of issue, as well as those sites facilitating the sale of unofficial hospitality packages described above.

11. The advent of internet auction sites such as eBay has significantly exacerbated the problem of the touting of event tickets. Such sites offer a quick and easy method whereby tickets can be sold on, with no marketing costs and a relatively secure method of receiving funds from the eventual ticket purchaser. They also offer a degree of ‘authenticity’ to the sale process – with an eBay sale being viewed in some way as less discreditable than purchasing a ticket from a tout.

12. From an event organisers point of view the effect is essentially the same. Whilst Scottish Rugby (as an event organiser) attempts to organise a fair and equitable method of allocating match tickets, whilst also trying to maximise the revenue stream available to invest back into our sport, the internet sites involved disclaim any responsibility for the effects of the transactions which they facilitate. They take no responsibility as to whose hands the tickets eventually make their way, nor are they bothered by the loss of revenue to the event promoter.

13. In the view of Scottish Rugby a way must be found to ensure that these sites are made to stop marketing/touting event tickets and are also required to provide information to event organisers as to those seeking to sell on tickets through their sales medium.

14. Effects of the problem
Scottish Rugby estimates that for key rugby internationals at Murrayfield there are around 1000 to 2000 unofficial hospitality packages sold, significantly reducing the governing body’s ability to generate revenue from the sale of the official hospitality packages offered by Scottish Rugby and its partners.

15. This practice significantly reduces the amount of money that Scottish Rugby is able to generate from a match, which in turn directly affects the amount of money available for investment in community rugby programmes along with valuable projects in schools that we are involved in.

16. By way of example the sale of 2,000 unofficial packages equates to a loss to the sport of up to £1,000,000 of turnover and potentially £750,000 of profitability. To put it in simple terms, if this revenue was not being lost to the game Scottish Rugby could more than double the number of Community development officers it financially supports. The sums involved are therefore material to the sport.

17. In addition to the tickets involved in unofficial hospitality a similar number of tickets are though to change hands (above face value) on a ticket only basis, thus denying many genuine supporters the opportunity to see important matches.

18. Possible solutions
The draft Commonwealth Games Bill currently being considered by the Parliament provides the basis of a possible structure not only to address the problem in respect of the Games but to provide the basis to tackle the issue of ticket touting more widely if it were expanded to include other events and passed as a separate piece of legislation. This expanded legislation would aim to:

  • Ensure fair access to tickets
  • Make it a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to sell, offer, or expose for sale a ticket at above face value, including as part of a package.
  • Create a formal offence of touting tickets, including on the internet

19. A further consideration might be to use Secondary Legislation to give the Parliament the power to designate sporting tournaments or other events which the restrictions would apply to. This would ensure those events or sports who do not believe there is a problem or events which do not wish to be included would not be covered, preventing unnecessary regulation in areas where it is not needed.

20. We would stress that the amounts of money involved are material. We would also stress that for any such regime to be effective the sanctions available to it must to significantly higher than those envisaged within the Bill.

21. We urge the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to tackle the problem of ticket touting at rugby matches to ensure that the proceeds from matches are able to be used to grow community rugby.

22. Summary

  • Black market tickets and unofficial hospitality packages result in several thousand touted tickets being sold for each international match at Murrayfield, including many within ‘unofficial hospitality packages’.
  • This reduces access to tickets for the genuine fan and significantly reduces the amount of money that the Scottish Rugby receives from the sale of official packages. It therefore directly affects the amount of money that can be contributed to the SRU’s primary aim: growing the game of rugby throughout Scotland.
  • The provisions included in the draft Commonwealth Games suggest a framework which could be applied to other events, including other major sporting occasions.
  • We also believe that a method whereby Secondary Legislation is used to specify which events legislation applies could be effective.
  • Scottish Rugby would welcome the opportunity to work with other sports, events organisers, MSPs and officials in order to find a sensible solution to black market ticketing, particularly unofficial hospitality packages.

GA Ireland
Company Secretary
20 December 2007

submission from equality and human rights commission

1. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, established under the Equality Act 2006, became operational on the 1st October 2007. The Commission took on the powers of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), with new responsibilities for sexual orientation, age, religion and belief, and human rights.

2. As an independent advocate for equality and human rights, the Commission aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people and promote and protect human rights. Our vision is a society built on fairness and respect where people are confident in all aspects of their diversity.

3. The impact of a project of the scale and complexity of the Commonwealth Games will continue to be felt in Glasgow long after the Games themselves end in 2014. Policy must therefore be directed not solely at delivering a successful event, but with an eye to the desired outcomes for the regeneration of the East End of Glasgow, and the benefits this can bring to the wider city and region.

4. To this end, the committee may find it useful to refer to the General Formal Investigation (GFI) into regeneration which was published by the Commission for Racial Equality in September this year (

5. The GFI’s terms of reference were:

  • how public authorities are complying with the duty to promote race equality in relation to their regeneration functions, including work done on their behalf by the private sector, and how this affects different racial groups;
  • how the outcomes of regeneration activities are evaluated in terms of racial equality; and
  • the effectiveness of arrangements for oversight and scrutiny.

6. The GFI concludes that regeneration and wider public service improvement in deprived areas should be working to the same goals - better outcomes for local people. It argues that it is therefore essential that regeneration and race equality are embedded into the business planning of public bodies providing services to the area being regenerated. The GFI also concludes that regeneration policy should

  • take a whole-place approach but with a small area focus, removing the potentially divisive boundaries between different sections of the community but enabling all stakeholders to develop a good understanding of the needs of different neighbourhoods and the people within them.
  • engage a wide range of stakeholders in the development of plans; the most important of whom are local people. Securing buy-in from the local community from the start and maintaining their full involvement throughout the processes is essential to a successful outcome.
  • develop baseline measures as part of plans before identifying actions and projects to help shape the vision, objectives and policies based on local needs.
  • set out proposals for community engagement through the development of plans themselves and during implementation.
  • allow for the development of more detailed plans, sitting below and as part of strategic frameworks in places where more significant physical change is anticipated. These more detailed plans should also be the subject of extensive consultation with communities.
  • include performance management frameworks with indicators and outcomes reflecting the needs of all sections of the local community. Use of qualitative data is essential and there should be appropriate mechanisms in place to gather this including using councillors, locally based staff and voluntary and community sector representatives.

7. At the same time, Scottish Ministers and public authorities in Scotland have statutory duties to assess all policy for its impact on race, gender and disability equality. Effective cross-strand equality impact assessment leads to better policy; a firm evidence base will help ensure that the once-in-a-generation opportunity to regenerate Glasgow’s East End will benefit all sections of the community and maximise the positive impact on the city as a whole. The Scottish Government’s own Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment Toolkit ( was updated this month, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to equality impact assess all policy across the six strands of race, gender, disability, religion and belief, age and sexual orientation. However, the Policy Memorandum accompanying the Bill, while it recognises the potential impact on disability equality of the Games Transport Plan, does not provide any further background on the outcomes of the equality impact assessment of the Bill or its policy intentions. This is another area the Committee may want to pursue.

Euan Page
Senior Government Affairs Officer
Equality and Human Rights Commission
21 December 2007


33 This is available on the Committee’s web-page at:

34 The figures used in this report are those in Annex A to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill as introduced. Included in the supplementary written evidence from officials is a revised version of that Annex. The revised version shows an increase in the budget from £372.977 million to £373.393 million. Although there has been a slight increase in the total budget, the level of public subsidy has remained the same. The £372.977 million budget estimate was prepared as a result of the June Evaluation Visit of the Commonwealth Games Federation reflecting the comments they had made. The £373.393 million budget was prepared in response to the formal written Evaluation Report of the Commonwealth Games Federation which was received at the end of September 2007. The supplementary written evidence shows the detailed movements between the two estimates.

35 Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 -

36 This is available on the Committee’s web-page at:

37 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 244

38 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 245

39 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 246

40 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 247

41 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 246

42 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 248

43 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 246

44 A SPICe Briefing Paper for the Health and Sport Committee: Lottery Funding of Commonwealth and Olympic Games provides details of the expected impact on sportscotland’s funds.

45 Written submission

46 Official Report, 11 December 2007, columns 249-50, and as illustrated by the revised Annex A included in supplementary written evidence.

47 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 250

48 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 251

49 Official Report, 11 December 2007, column 251