Chamber and committees

The bill provides that the purchase must be “for value”, but the expert reference group had suggested the term “onerous consideration”. Do you have any view as to why the bill uses different language?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

I want to move on from swifts and pheasants to talk about the other end of the bird family, which is the eagle population—not Tim Eagle, but the golden eagle. Specifically, I want to talk about why Stanley, the sad golden eagle, is sad and why I want the committee to make him happy.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that explanation. How would intention be established in those circumstances?

Thank you, Christine.

Amendment 157, which is the only amendment that I have lodged to the bill, deals with a specific issue that has been raised with me by constituents. It seeks to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit NatureScot to grant licences to allow the taking of mountain hares for the purpose of falconry. I lodged the amendment on behalf of my constituents Barry and Roxanne Blyther, who run a business called Elite Falconry in Fife.

As members might be aware, there are very few falconers in Scotland—there are no more than a few dozen—and it is very much a niche activity. However, the matter is very important to those who participate in the business and sport of falconry. My amendment seeks to address what I think was an unintended consequence of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which includes the protection of mountain hares.

Members who were in Parliament at that time might recall that, when the bill passed through Parliament, a late stage 3 amendment was accepted to include mountain hares among protected species. Because that was introduced at stage 3, there was no appropriate opportunity to allow proper consultation and discussion on the implications of that.

Had that been permitted, an unintended consequence would have become obvious: the impact on the sport and activities of falconers. The consequence of the change to the law in 2020 is that someone who flies birds of prey that swoop down and kill a mountain hare, which is in their nature to do, over moorland is guilty of an offence. That makes it very hazardous for falconers to do that activity where mountain hares might live, so they are severely restricted.

Therefore, the purpose of amendment 157 is to permit NatureScot to license falconers so that they can continue their activity on moorland, where mountain hares might be, without the fear of being prosecuted. When issuing such licences, NatureScot would be required to consider the welfare of mountain hares and their population numbers in the normal way, so the amendment is not about writing a blank cheque and putting the mountain hare population at risk.

Members might be aware that the issue has been assiduously pursued by my constituents through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. They might recall that Jackson Carlaw, the convener of that committee, hosted Stanley the sad golden eagle in the parliamentary garden. I recall, as other members will do with some amusement, the terror on Jackson Carlaw’s face as he stood in the close vicinity of the golden eagle. That committee supported the petition and urged the Scottish Government to change the law in the area.

My sensible proposition will allow NatureScot to license falconers to continue their activities on moorland. It would not have any serious impact on the mountain hare population given the numbers involved. We would allow falconers to conduct their business without fear of prosecution. I hope that colleagues on the committee who are sympathetic to golden eagles and falconers will grant their support and make Stanley the sad golden eagle a happy golden eagle instead.

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?