Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our approach is that we want to be as diligent as possible and to pull that apart, which is why we have asked many of our questions.

Similarly, following on from Gordon MacDonald’s line of questioning, we have talked a bit about what might happen in other jurisdictions, particularly across the rest of the UK. There has been discussion about an expert group being formed. What sort of dialogue has been established between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the other jurisdictions in the UK about making sure that we keep pace and input, because there will be overlaps as we go forward?

It therefore remains for me to conclude the public part of our meeting. I thank the minister and the bill team. The bill team has been diligent in paying attention to our evidence sessions—the committee has noted that and welcomes it. I just wanted to put that on the record. I thank you for this morning and for the on-going work.

I am sure that your ministerial colleagues would love that response.

Thank you very much, minister. What are your and your team’s reflections on that evidence? To summarise the evidence, there has been broad agreement that we must incorporate digital assets into Scots law. The framing of the bill has received broad support, but there have been questions, in broad terms, about the clarity, and what may or may not be captured at the margins, of the definitions. I note that that is not necessarily a universal view.

Those are some of the points that have been raised. What are your broad reflections on the evidence that the committee has heard?

I will probe some of those points, especially around the fundamental definitions. The bill is framed in terms of things that arise from electronic systems that are “rivalrous” and “immutable”. The legal witnesses said that those last two concepts were clear but that they are not long-standing features of Scots law.

When I look at how other jurisdictions have sought to capture similar concepts, I see that they have gone about it in a slightly different way. That is notwithstanding the other elements, which are part of the wider scope of that legislation. Just in terms of the narrow definitions, the Australian bill, for example—the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025—talks about

“an electronic record that one or more persons are capable of factually controlling”.

The bill goes on to describe that “factually controlling” an electronic record means that those people, either solely or jointly, are capable of transferring the electronic record. That captures a similar concept to rivalrousness, but it perhaps does so in plainer language.

Is there a potential issue in relation to using concepts such as rivalrousness and immutability, which are maybe less clear in terms of everyday speech, even if legal experts would claim that they are clear—especially if those terms are novel in Scots law?

Similarly, there is also the concept of immutability. We heard from Professor Fox that the bill may not require absolute immutability. In the most fundamental sense, we are talking about virtual things that exist as electrons in hard disk memory banks and in a distributed way, so they are not, therefore, in an absolute sense, immutable at all.

Is it problematic that we are talking about hard immutability, either physically or conceptually? Professor Fox said that absolute immutability may not be required—as a practical approach, if these things are operating as they should be, they are unchangeable. Is the problem that there is a fuzzy margin in the concept of immutability with regard to the bill?

Thank you. With that, I will bring in the deputy convener, Michelle Thomson.

Any Buddhist principles have been underexplored by the committee. I will ask a couple of additional questions, one of which draws on Kevin Stewart’s line of questioning. The bill simply establishes that digital assets are property under Scots law. I wonder whether one of the dangers is perhaps that we think about the big concepts, such as big corporate transactions or the future of technology, but are there considerations on that?

The legislation might well end up being important for things such as civil disputes, probate and divorce settlements. Should some considerations be made because of the nature of digital assets, which are different? For example, it is more possible for someone to say that they have lost access to a digital asset, such as an access key or what have you. In a divorce case going through the courts, you can imagine scenarios in which people might try to claim that they do not have the assets that it is claimed they have because they have lost the ability to access their digital assets and all their wealth.

I am not asking that specific question, but is there a need to examine any safeguards, procedures or technicalities in relation to the application of civil disputes, probate and divorce settlements, or other things that we think of as the nuts and bolts of Scots law and civil law, if the subject of those proceedings will be digital assets?

Finally—again—I recognise that the bill is unusual. It is focused and short, but some of the concepts that it deals with are expansive. Before we close the meeting, I invite the minister to say whether there are any issues or items that he wants to note that we have perhaps not touched on in the questions that we have asked.

Minister, Emma Phillips wants to come in. Would you like to bring her in?