Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course, guidance will also allow lawyers to do what they do best. [Laughter.] There was a lot of laughter there, but I was making no comment on what people think that lawyers do best. I simply meant that it might allow lawyers to interrogate individual scenarios as they emerge to enable the formation of precedent.

Framing the bill in such a way allows for the recognition of that uncertainty, because we are where we are. Thank you very much.

Perhaps we could return to the issue of tokenisation, which we have already skirted around and which was led off by Greg McLardie. Last week, we heard evidence from Professor Buchanan, who broadly explained the three types of tokens: payment tokens, utility tokens and security tokens. We can regard carbon credit, for example, as either a utility token or a security token.

My question is bigger than that, though. To what extent is it an issue that the bill is mute on tokenisation, bearing in mind the speed of change in that area? Is the prevailing approach a sensible one? In that case, I suppose that we should bear in mind that modifications will need to be made in relatively short order. Is it better to have something instead of nothing, or is it a serious issue that the bill is mute on tokenisation?

I will put that to Greg first.

Professor Robbie, what role do you see for guidance on the bill as situations emerge? There will be a sweet spot between taking that sensible approach of framing the bill as a step—to protect the innocents, as Greg McLardie said—and realising that the bill will also need utility in a fast-changing environment. I would appreciate your additional reflections on that.

That was a very positive endorsement.

Professor Schafer, do you want to come in? To what extent does not considering tokenisation create a gap in the bill? Do you concur with Greg’s view?

Good morning. I am really enjoying the conversation. Before I get on to my main questions, I ask you to indulge me. I have listened to the conversation carefully, and I understand why this particular route has been chosen—lawyers understand the law, the roots of which go back to Roman law and so on, and we are now trying to bolt on technology.

Could I have some brief reflections on the risks around generative AI? You made me think of that, Professor Buchanan, when immutability was discussed. I think that we are clear about what happens when someone changes something in the ledger, but what about when a thing changes something in the ledger? Although the bill has a purpose and is probably a good starting place, we all understand that we cannot possibly begin to bolt on something in legislation without butting against such situations quite quickly, given the exponential speed of growth in AI.

I would appreciate your indulging me in some reflections on that, Professor Buchanan, because what we are exploring here is whether we have the level right—that is really what I am asking.

Thank you for that. I do not want to indulge myself too much and go too far off topic, but I would like to get Jamie Gray’s perspective. The trick will be to have the best legal brains—we had Lord Hodge before the committee last week; you do not get better than that—aligned with the best technological brains.

I used the example of immutability because that is utterly fundamental to the framework that we are trying to develop; it goes back to first principles of law. From your perspective, Jamie, are we doing enough to get the framing right, and gelling together the best legal and tech brains?

Professor Buchanan, you mentioned trust. I agree that trust—in Scotland as a place to do business, in Scots as people to do business with, and in our fintech sector—is definitely a door opener; it brings in economic trade and benefit.

Considering where we are at present, there is a need for legal certainty, although we accept that that will not, and cannot, be perfect. Do you think that the bill will bring further, if not complete, legal certainty that will—critically—bring economic advantage? Will it enable businesses elsewhere to think, “Well, there is at least a framing”, even if there is no legal precedent, which we cannot have yet? Is it a door opener for economic opportunity, in other words?

Peter Ferry may want to come in, but I will bring in Jamie Gray first, to reflect on this area from a legal perspective. Part of your role involves being cognisant of risk and speaking to your clients about that.

On balance, therefore, all things considered—we have considered a lot of things thus far—do you think that the bill, simple though it is, and we understand why that is the case, will enhance economic opportunity? In other words, when you walk your clients through a risk assessment, will you have increased confidence that the law is protecting them?

I will ask about a couple of areas. We have had quite a prolonged discussion about getting the balance right. The genesis, if you like, of the bill is in good legal principles, yet it is attempting to bolt something on that is highly complex and moving at pace with developments in technology.

One of the scenarios that I posed picked up the convener’s point about immutability and where autogenerated AI comes to the fore where, instead of someone changing something in the ledger, you have a thing changing a thing in the ledger. I do not want to go into detail to the nth degree on AI, but what I was trying to explore with the previous panel of witnesses was whether we have the framing of the bill right in terms of immutability, because that is a fundamental principle that is understood in law, but it is crashing into technology. I am using that as an example. Have we got the balance right? Do we need to go deeper, in guidance or understanding, or are we happy to let things evolve? I know that that is quite an open question—do not all rush at once. Dr Patrick, you smiled at me, so you can go first.