Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am pleased that you have confirmed that TUPE is being used for the advocates who worked for the previous organisation. That organisation employed 48 advocates, I think, among its 58 staff members. Is that right? Is the intention that the 48 advocates will come over to you?

It is good that you have the intention to keep the staffing complement that was there before.

Carol Mochan asked about the value of the contract being lower. Usually, the cost of a contract is in people. Employment is the heaviest cost. You suggested that the use of technology at other ends of the business would explain how you can do it on a reduced budget, so it is not to do with staff reduction.

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?