In terms of trust—a word that my colleague Liz Smith mentioned—pensions, more than any other benefit, talk to trust in the state. When people have contributed throughout their entire working life, nothing diminishes trust more than an issue with their pension. Looking back, you mentioned that, historically, there has not been the required investment in the agency, particularly in automation and digitisation. How has that impacted the trust of the population in a critical state benefit?

Therefore, will you be applying even more caution to any subsequent commitments and promises that you make? Part of the issue, particularly with the most recent October date, is that people have been blowing a gasket, in effect, when they have been told and they have been hanging on. I, too, have many constituents—quite a case load of people—who are affected in this way. Part of it is the death by a thousand cuts when they are hanging on, and then they are told, “No, we are not going to meet that deadline either.”

Good morning. I, too, want to qualify anything that I might say by making it clear that I am not a lawyer. If you think that I have asked a ridiculous question, please suppress your laughter.

I have been wondering about the definition of a digital asset. I know that you will have considered the advent of artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI, where an asset might be part of the whole generative thing. As a result, it will be evolving—it will never be the same thing twice. That whole part of a particular package might have some definition or some descriptor around it, but it could be eternally evolving. At the point at which the packet transfer takes place, the packet will be the descriptor of the generative AI piece of technology, and that will be the only thing that we will have to hang on to.

How do you square off that kind of situation with your definitions thus far? I appreciate that you have taken cognisance of that by making things as simple as possible, because we do not know what we do not know. However, that is, I think, one of the key challenges, and, indeed, we are not that far away from that.

I hope that I have been sort of clear.

I can see how you are making that backwards link into other areas of law at present, but I still think that there is a potential challenge. Something would be flushed out if there was intrinsic value—somebody would come forward; that is the nature of it. However, if there is something that lets in the amorphous thing that is constantly changing, I think that it will be very hard, unless somebody steps forward with regard to believing in intrinsic value or it butts into other areas of law.

I do not expect you to have the answer to that, because we do not even have the questions. I suppose that it is about fleshing out sufficient flexibility in what has been determined thus far to at least take account of what we think that we are starting to imagine some of the issues might be. It sounds like you are more confident about that.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us for this part of our inquiry. I welcome your interest.

I want to ask some more questions about cost, governance and ethics. If I refer to specific inquiries, it is because they form the most useful examples—I am very clear about the scope of our inquiry.

You have already referenced section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2005, particularly in relation to the need to avoid any unnecessary cost to public funds. However, my concern is that there is surely a fundamental conflict of interest in that provision, in that the chair is responsible for controlling the costs but is also the person who authorises spending. By any measure, there is a lack of independent oversight and the accountability mechanisms are weak—you have recognised that inquiries have a demand-led budget and that the most that you can hope for is to have sight of costs. There is considerable ambiguity around the meaning of what would be an “unnecessary” cost, and, of course, that ultimately comes down to the chair’s judgment. The risk of scope creep is also a major concern.

Do you agree that the 2005 act needs reform? What are your ideas for resolving the tension between the chair’s independence and the need to improve accountability in relation to funding? That seems to be quite critical.

That is the line that has been taken by a variety of witnesses. However, I refer back to the convener’s comment about how other countries manage to do inquiries. There are precedents that we can consider. There are countries where the public has a high degree of trust in inquiries, which are considered to be authentic, and there is cost control. If other countries such as Sweden can do it, why can we not do it in Scotland and the UK?

I accept what you have said, except that we have circled, slightly. My concern is that we could be looking down the barrel of another £26.2 million and associated costs. Given that we recognise the role of the chair, any new chair may say, “Well, that is how Lord Bracadale chose to do things, but this is how I choose to do them.” Surely, that is the countering concern to what you have outlined.

I hear what you are saying but, again, there is a conundrum. Appropriately, you call to a higher power—that the issue involves public funds—and you seek to put your view that it would be appropriate for the inquiry to be brought to a conclusion. However, the Government thereby runs the risk of accusations of meddling in the independence of the chair. I cannot see how that circle can be squared within the current legislation and provisions.

You are being clear but we are not comparing apples with apples. I am not suggesting that there will be another £26.2 million of costs; I am suggesting that it is the right of the chair—and I do not want to labour this point—to make an assessment of the evidence that has been gathered thus far. I am not suggesting that the entire thing would be run again but there is at least the possibility that they might wish to further interrogate certain pockets of it. That, as a minimum, is a possibility. I am pointing out that, in terms of cost control and accountability, the conflict of interest at the heart of the 2005 act is largely unresolvable.

Thank you very much for that.