Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is why I wonder whether, instead of attempting to regulate the specific types of technology that can be used, we need to attempt to regulate human behaviour in relation to those technologies, and to regulate with a view to protecting people. I see nothing in the EU approach that frames the issue as being about how we protect people.

My last question will use an example from today’s news headlines about the requirement for new laws on planning a mass casualty attack. Professor Basiri, you talked about Instagram posts. Instagram is not legally responsible for the posts of its users. If AI continues to accelerate and we have something closer to true artificial general intelligence, who would be committing the crime if an AI agent had done the planning for such an attack? The Prime Minister has said that people should not spend their time doing things that AI can do better, but once that encompasses everything, where is the protection for people’s roles in all this? Do we need to reframe the challenge of regulation as being about protecting the human intelligence?

Which countries are you are referring to that take that alternative approach?

I agree. I note that venues, festivals and events that do not have specific permission for visa-free travel might be looking to attract artists from a number of different countries. Each individual artist who comes from the EU might have only one issue to deal with in getting into the UK, but, in order for the event to be successful and a great contributor to the cultural landscape, it might have to try to support people from different countries in multiple ways.

That is what it wants you to think. [Laughter.]

Good morning. You have all given a pretty clear picture of the level of chaos, disruption and confusion that there is for people who want to tour across a range of different European countries. You have shown that that has been exacerbated partly by the economic circumstances and the cost of living, but the fundamental and avoidable change is a result of Brexit and the way in which the TCA works.

You have focused mostly on people from this country who want to tour in Europe, but it is fair to say that there are similar impacts on venues and cultural events here that want to have artists visit from other European countries. If that has an impact on those venues and festivals, especially the smaller ones, that will cause knock-on harm to the wider sector.

What do you think of the UK Government’s approach to addressing those issues? In its manifesto for last year’s election, Labour said that it wanted to

“work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship”

with Europe, and that helping touring artists would be part of that. Do you and the wider sector have clarity on what exactly the UK Government intends to achieve by way of repairing the damage that has been done?

To save a bit of time, I will ask my follow-up question now. Do you agree that the objective should be to restore as much flexibility, in relation to freedom of movement, as the EU will agree to? Should that be the UK Government’s goal? Whoever would like to answer that can do so.

Thank you.

Good morning. It has been suggested that, particularly from the US perspective, the EU’s approach to regulation is too restrictive. There is nothing new or unique to AI in that dynamic. For many years, there has been a tendency in the US to emphasise economic opportunities from innovation, even if they involve, for example, more release of toxic chemicals, more rat faeces in the food chain—as one of the regulations that has just been ripped up allows—or other forms of social and environmental harm. In the European context, the tendency is to emphasise the benefits that regulation is intended to achieve. Therefore there is nothing fundamentally new or specific to AI in that dynamic.

I wonder whether you could unpack this quote from the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s written submission to the committee:

“the UK could choose to bring the two approaches together to maximise the opportunity whilst ensuring there are effective regulations”.

It seems to me that those approaches are opposites, so we will have to pick one. Any effective regulation that achieves a social or environmental benefit or a public protection will, to some extent, constrain economic opportunities. For example, I could aim to maximise the amount of ice cream that I eat while ensuring that I do not get fat, but that will not work. Surely, we will have to pick one.

Thank you. Professor Schaffer, did you want to add anything on that?

Got you.

Colin, do you want to come in on the question about whether there is any clarity yet on where the UK Government is going with any of this and the extent to which it knows what it wants to achieve to improve the situation?

I have one question on the principle and one that is more practical.

On the principle, there is still a concern that major constitutional change requires democratic legitimacy. When this Parliament was created and given authority over devolved policy areas, the public had been asked for consent for that major change to the constitutional framework of Scotland, and they said yes.

When the UK Government proposed to leave the European Union, much as I regret the fact that the question was answered as it was, at least the public were asked the question, and 52 per cent of people UK-wide and 38 per cent in Scotland said yes. Even at that time, the subsequent constitutional changes that are now represented in UKIMA were not proposals that were on the table. Nobody in any part of the UK or Scotland said yes to those major constitutional changes, and Scotland’s Parliament said no to them.

Whatever changes emerge from the UK Government’s review, how can we achieve democratic legitimacy, which is currently lacking, for the new constitutional framework, which will continue, on some level, to constrain the powers that were given to this Parliament by the public?