Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are confident. The aim of the expert reference group was to establish key principles and reflect them in this short bill, which defines what would be counted or classified as property in terms of digital rights. That is there, so we can start working up lists of what is excluded. That is a different approach altogether. It is like a devolution argument—what is reserved and what is devolved, and we just leave everything devolving. That is the approach taken by the expert reference group. We are content to lay down the key principles in law of what defines digital assets as property. If something does not reach those thresholds, it will fail the test.

I will reflect on that. Again, if the committee recommends that, we will take the recommendation on board.

The bill determines what is classified as digital property. Other legislation deals with other issues, such as people being conned out of money and the law being broken.

Scots law is distinctive, and I think that if you were to look at many Scots acts of Parliament, you would not recognise a lot of phrases. I am not sure that there is anything unusual in having some obscure phrases, as far as the general public is concerned, in our legislation. Clearly, the expert reference group felt that the terms were appropriate. “Rivalrous” is a commonly used concept in economics and business, so the group felt that it was appropriate.

With regard to coming up with legislation that deals with the modern world of digital assets, being “immutable”, which means that the records cannot be changed, is important for being “rivalrous”, in that only one person can use the digital asset. A second person cannot use it, because one person is already using it. Therefore, the two concepts are closely interlinked. We have to define property in a digital world, and the expert reference group took the approach that this was the appropriate way in which to do it.

A lot of jurisdictions have been taking forward similar legislation. I do not pretend to know what is in other countries’ legislation, because a lot of countries have been legislating on the issue. We have to take our guidance from the expert reference group, which explained its rationale as to why this was the best way forward when it gave evidence to the committee.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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