Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Session 6: 13 May 2021 to 8 April 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 956 contributions

|

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

Thank you. You have explained the rationale for that choice well, but perhaps I can just tease out some of the detail a little more. What is your understanding of the requirement, in section 4(2) of the bill, for “good faith”? How would that be demonstrated in practice?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

Would there be any requirement on the purchaser in that scenario to have done any form of due diligence, or would it simply be a negative?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

Good morning. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising.

There are two issues in the bill that I want to explore. The first is the question of acquisition in good faith, which is covered in section 4(2). The bill provides that someone who acquires a digital asset

“in good faith and for value”

can become the owner of that asset, even if the person who is selling to them is not the owner.

I want to understand the rationale for that and—perhaps for the benefit of the millions who are watching at home, who might not be lawyers—to illustrate it. Let us imagine that Daniel Johnson owns large sums of bitcoin, and that I am a nefarious international criminal in some foreign jurisdiction. I hack Daniel’s account and get access to his key. I then sell his bitcoin to Gordon MacDonald, who is a third-party purchaser buying in good faith. Under the bill, Gordon is protected, as long as he pays “value”, but Daniel has lost his asset and is deprived of it. In theory, Daniel has a remedy against me, but I am hiding in the back streets of Montevideo or Lagos, so that remedy is valueless. Is it fair that, in those circumstances, the purchaser is protected as opposed to the owner of the asset?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

I will ask a slightly different question, to do with other areas of potential law reform. We appreciate that the bill is very tight in the area that it covers, but a number of respondents to the committee’s call for views identified other areas where the law needs to be addressed, such as private international law. Where do the assets exist? If somebody were to die, which law of succession would apply? What is your thinking around further law reform in that area? What work is being done, and how quickly might it proceed?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

I touched earlier on the issue of a remedy for the true owner who has been deprived of his asset because a criminal has acquired it and sold it on. Some of the respondents to the consultation suggested that some remedy could be provided. Do you have any view on how a remedy might be constructed in those circumstances?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Artificial Intelligence (Economic Potential)

Meeting date: 19 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

You have given us a lot to think about, and some helpful ideas about what changes need to be made in a policy perspective to protect original content. That was very useful—thank you.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Artificial Intelligence (Economic Potential)

Meeting date: 19 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses.

Dex, the point that you just made is what I was going to ask about. What does AI mean for the workforce? Last week, we were looking at a report from Microsoft about the sorts of jobs that might suffer from development of AI, and in the top five were writers and authors. What does that mean for human creativity? What will the role be in future for original, human-created output? Is AI effectively just derivative on the work humans have done? If we are squeezing humans out of the picture, what does that mean? Does it mean that we will not have innovation in the future?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Artificial Intelligence (Economic Potential)

Meeting date: 19 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

Good.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Artificial Intelligence (Economic Potential)

Meeting date: 19 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

You are probably not helping through giving us answers, but you are maybe helping us to ask the right questions. That is progress, so thank you for that.

I turn to Kayla-Megan with a similar question, but perhaps put it more in the context of music. Do you have similar concerns about how we create original music in the future if AI will just do it better?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Artificial Intelligence (Economic Potential)

Meeting date: 19 November 2025

Murdo Fraser

That is quite an optimistic outlook, which is good to hear.

I will follow up on one point you made about protecting intellectual property, which I think is an interesting one for us to look at. I can ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Beethoven, and it will do that. Beethoven is long dead and long out of copyright, so there are no IP issues.

If I ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Lewis Capaldi, it will do that too. However, Lewis Capaldi is still with us, he is still producing music and his music is protected. How does Lewis Capaldi protect his brand when anybody can produce a song that sounds just like him?