Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have two amendments in the group—amendments 199 and 203. Amendment 199 deals with the issue of independent oversight. It proposes the creation of an

“Assisted Dying Safeguards and Oversight Body.”

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for making the arguments as to why some independent oversight is required, although I think that my solution is better than his—he proposes a parliamentary body to oversee operation of the bill, and I propose an independent body. Members will see from the wording of the amendment how that body would be made up.

As Daniel Johnson alluded to, the reason why that is necessary is that, as it stands, the bill relies entirely on internal reporting and ministerial review but does not provide for a permanent independent authority that is charged with monitoring how the bill will operate in practice, ensure compliance with safeguards or investigate when things go wrong. When we are dealing with a new law on life and death, it is essential that we have those safeguards in place. Indeed, as we have seen in other jurisdictions where such oversight is missing, there are risks of a slippery slope, where regulations become loosened over time, eligibility expanded and terminology blurred.

Amendment 199 seeks to prevent that. It would establish an independent safeguard and oversight body with clear and enforceable duties. Its responsibilities would include the need to review every case within 14 days after the substance was provided, maintain a national register of authorised medical professionals, investigate concerns about conduct or competence, audit compliance with law and regulations and publish anonymised data on every assisted death, including demographic and clinical information. The body would be composed of legal, medical, ethical and patient advocacy experts. Crucially, none of its members could be involved in providing assisted suicide themselves. Everyone acting under the act would be legally required to comply with the directions of the independent body.

The amendment is about vigilance. If the Parliament is determined to cross the moral line into assisted suicide, it must not do so blindly or complacently. An oversight body is the minimum protection against the erosion of safeguards and the slow normalisation of assisted suicide that could happen under the bill.

Amendment 203 proposes an adjustment to section 27 of the bill. It would provide that review reports specify how many medical reviews took place, what they discovered and whether any cases were referred for potential prosecution. It would add real transparency and accountability to how the act will operate in practice.

That is a reasonable point. The amendment has been crafted in such a way that it would be for two independent doctors to review the evidence; it would not be necessary to discuss that with the person who made the complaint. I hope that that answers the member’s point.

The two medical professionals concerned would be ones who were unconnected to the death. They would have full access to the deceased person’s medical records and declarations. If the review found that the eligibility criteria had not been met or that the law had been broken, the case would have to be referred to the procurator fiscal.

Amendment 189 is about providing accountability, transparency and respect for both the living and the dead. It would ensure that, in granting the most serious of powers, Parliament also guarantees the highest standard of oversight.

That is correct. However, this is about taking a belt-and-braces approach by formalising that position and putting something in the bill that makes it absolutely clear what the route is for a family to go down in the event that they have concerns. We are all very much aware of the pressure on the police, the justice system and the procurator fiscal service. Creating a specific mechanism is a way in which those concerns can be raised on a much simpler basis and it ensures that, when complaints are made to the procurator fiscal, they are backed up with the appropriate medical evidence, which is what we are trying to achieve.

Okay. Well, it is called “Working with AI: measuring the applicability of generative AI to occupations”. It is quite a detailed and interesting report that looks at occupations in which AI has the highest applicability and, therefore, is potentially the largest threat to people working in those sectors. Among the top five, we have passenger attendants and sales representatives of services, as you might expect. I will not name them, but I know of at least one local high school that I have been to that prides itself on its vocational training, which provides youngsters with the skills to work in call centres, doing sales-type jobs. That will be reflected right across Scotland. Do we have the right skills training available, either in schools or further up the chain, to equip young people—or people at any point in their career—with skills that will not be made redundant by AI? If not, what should we be doing instead?

Thank you. That was bit of an aside, really, but it is quite interesting, and, as it was on the front page, I thought I would ask you about it.

I want to talk about AI changing the nature of work and skills. I know that we touched on this earlier, but I want to probe a little bit further. I am looking at a report that Microsoft did on 17 October. Steven Grier, I do not know whether you have seen this.

Good morning. I would like to ask more about the issue of workforce and skills. However, before I do that, I want to go back to an earlier discussion about the public sector and productivity. A story on the front page of The Herald newspaper today that caught my eye is very relevant. It says that the head of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency is being summoned to this Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee to answer questions about the delays in providing compensation remedies for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. That is to do with the compensation for unfair discrimination.

The SPPA has been given 18 months to give pension remedy statements to those affected, but it has missed two deadlines, meaning that retired people are being locked out of their entitlement, and it is costing taxpayers millions more in interest, which is currently charged at 8 per cent a year. Why on earth are such processes still being done manually by the SPPA, in this day and age, when we could be using AI to do them?

Thank you.

What you are saying is fascinating. Did I see that you recently joined the board of the Scottish Funding Council?

That is fine. It is good to know that the SFC is—I hope—leaning on your knowledge and expertise in this area.

I was interested and a little concerned to see in the Microsoft report that the top five occupations on which AI will have the biggest impact include historian and author. I declare an interest in both categories. Is there a risk that human creativity will be squeezed out by AI? If the report says that historian and author are jobs that will be squeezed out, what does that mean?

A lot of what I was going to ask has already been covered, so I will not go over old ground, but I want to pick up on Gordon MacDonald’s last point about reskilling people and contextualise that. In the past 20 years, Scotland has had a lot of people in the economy working in call centres. For example, 10 years ago, if I wanted to speak to my energy supplier, I would pick up the phone and speak to somebody in a call centre. Now, everything is on the app, and I am speaking to something which is probably a computer and not a human being because it is all done through ChatGPT. Will we see the death of call centre jobs because they are all being replaced by AI and, if we are, what will happen to the people who have those jobs?