Seòmar agus comataidhean

Professor Schaffer mentioned the election and the use of misleading videos. Business does not happen in a bubble. People who run businesses and SMEs do not isolate themselves in their businesses. Like everyone else, they use their phones, so they will see external influences. We have talked about bad-faith actors. Businesses need to think about how AI could be used negatively against them, perhaps through comments about their business. That happens more often these days. How can we increase people’s knowledge and understanding of that?

But, with the pace of change, it has become more difficult to tell whether something is true. Previously, we would see an animation and we would be able to tell that it was not real, but now that we can see an image of an actual person doing something, it is hard to believe that what our eyes are telling us is not true.

Can I ask one other brief question that is linked? We are an ethical nation but a small country. Can we have an ethical approach to AI, given that a lot of the content is not generated in Scotland? How difficult is it for any country—and we are quite small—to say that it will be an ethical AI provider, producer or user when so much of the content comes from outside?

Thank you for being here this morning.

I suppose that the average person’s understanding of their engagement with AI involves trying to work out whether the video on their phone is AI or not. Yesterday, on the radio there was a story about reducing animal testing and AI being part of the solution, but, this morning, there was another report on the radio about the music industry, the pressure that it is under from AI and the concerns that exist in that area.

The example of health has already been cited. It feels as though, in health, AI is a tool. I think that most people would understand it as a tool in the sense that we would usually recognise a tool—it is able to analyse and provide information more quickly and to be reliable in doing so. However, for most people, that is only part of the story of AI. Could you say a bit more about where you think that there are legitimate concerns, whether for sectors or for individuals? Is improving public understanding part of the solution, or is the public’s level of distrust or fear legitimate?

Professor Schaffer, would you like to respond? You mentioned the issue of students and how difficult it is to manage their use of AI in universities.

Heather, in the work that you do, do you distinguish between the ways in which, broadly speaking—there are probably more than two of them—AI is used? When we think about the economy, are we just more focused on it as a tool? Next week, we will hear from a panel that will include musicians, who might have more to say about copyright issues and so on. Is your organisation more focused on how AI can be used by businesses as a tool, or do you also engage with broader issues around interpretation or the potential to mislead?

The Government is coming up with an AI strategy, although I think that it has been delayed until the spring. There is a subgroup of industry members. The process is very business focused. Do you think that that is the right approach, or should the Government look at the broader impact of AI on society?

Amendment 152 asks the committee to consider the appropriate age for people to be included in the bill. My understanding is that Liam McArthur has indicated that he supports raising the age to 18, but my amendment aligns the bill with comparable policy, which considers the cognitive maturity of young people.

The Scottish Sentencing Council, whose framework the Scottish Government accepts, states clearly that

“the brain does not fully mature until ... the age of 25”.

This scientific and psychological understanding guides how we treat culpability for crime, by recognising that young adults might not yet possess full emotional and cognitive maturity. There are a number of different landmark ages at which responsibilities and obligations are extended to young people, but I ask members to consider whether, if the principle of maturity at 25 is accepted when determining responsibility for wrongdoing, it should also apply when considering a decision that is far more permanent—indeed, one that would end one’s own life.

Raising the age to 25 aligns the bill with the same evidence-based understanding of brain development that already shapes our justice system. By applying an age of 16 or 18, we would be permitting individuals to make an irreversible choice during a period when their decision-making faculties are still developing. Surely, if we believe that a person under the age of 25 might not yet be fully capable of assessing long-term consequences when committing a crime, we must apply that same caution when it comes to their choosing to end their own life through an assisted suicide.

My amendment is about ensuring consistency, protecting the vulnerable and acting with the same moral seriousness across all areas of law.

Will the member take an intervention?

My intervention is about age. The Scottish Sentencing Council’s research highlights that young people

“are generally less able to exercise good judgement when making decisions”,

that they

“are more vulnerable to negative influences such as peer pressure and exploitative relationships”

and that they

“may take more risks”.

The research seems relevant to the decision that the committee will have to make about age. The decisions that young people can make when they are 16 or 18—for example, about getting married, starting smoking or drinking alcohol—are all reversible; they can get divorced, give up smoking or become teetotal. However, what we are talking about is not a reversible decision. I caution members on whether to accept that allowing such a decision to be made at 16 or 18 is appropriate.

Good morning, minister. In advance of this morning’s meeting, I had a look at our previous evidence sessions going back to 2023, when Neil Gray, who was the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy at the time, came to give evidence on Grangemouth. That followed the announcement of the closure in November of that year. At that meeting, the cabinet secretary said:

“We are talking about a century-old refinery that has had issues, where significant interventions have been made in the past and where the joint venture has provided a significant subsidy for a number of years. Therefore, the announcement was not a great surprise to us, and I do not think that it should have been to others.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 13 December 2023; c 52.]

Was it a surprise for you, when you came into office, that there was no transition plan in place for Grangemouth? We are still waiting on the Scottish Government’s just transition plan for Grangemouth. I hear what you are saying about positive working relationships, but how easy was it to start those relationships and get things moving?