Chamber and committees

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.

I am not a lawyer and I am not claiming any expertise, but my simple view is that, if the framing of some legislation, even though it is simple, ticks the box that either protects people when something happens or engenders confidence for further activity—although it is quite light touch and I know that the situation is more complex than that—that is not necessarily a bad thing. I have expressed that simplistically, but I am trying to explore this. I used immutability and AI simply as an example—there may be other considerations—but what I am trying to explore from a legal perspective is whether the bill has the right touch.

Also, this is a slightly different thread, but the Faculty of Advocates consultation response referred to value and the fact that the provision on that should not be worded in the negative in the bill. I wanted to pick that up with you, but perhaps we can stay on the other question for now.

It could be the first that some of us have heard.

You have given a very clear and comprehensive explanation, so thank you very much.

To bring in Professor Yüksel Ripley and Dr MacPherson, I want to get a sense of whether the bill’s framing as it is currently documented is in the right place.

I am always open minded enough to hear more about AI.

Thank you.

Mr Tariq, the faculty’s commentary is that the bill’s good-faith provision is expressed in the negative and you would rather see it expressed in the positive, but I want to flesh that out a bit more.