Seòmar agus comataidhean

Likewise, Leo Fakhrul, if you were to explain a 21st century company that embeds AI, what would you say were its organising principles? It is not about functional silos based around information, because the AI will do that for you. What do you think the organising principles are for an AI-based company?

Fantastic. We have definitely run out of time, although we have certainly not run out of questions. I thank both our panels for validating my degree choice, given that I am a philosophy graduate. With that, I thank you both for your time this morning. It has been extremely useful. We have a lot to think about and I am now worried about how we will pull this together in a single report. We might have to use some AI ourselves to do that. Thank you so much. I draw the public session to a close.

We move now to agenda item 3, which is hearing evidence on cross-border public procurement regulations. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

I have a question for the minister. For clarity, does the instrument mean that Iraqi firms need to be given equal consideration when bidding for public work, and vice versa for Scottish firms in Iraq? In practical terms, looking at the balance of trade and the industrial and economic base of both countries, are there likely to be Iraqi firms that bid? Has there been any analysis of that?

Likewise, what might the opportunities be for Scottish firms to bid for public contracts in Iraq?

Under agenda item 5 we will continue our evidence sessions on artificial intelligence. We are pleased to have two panels this morning, the first of which consists of Dex Hunter-Torricke, strategic communications adviser and former head of communications at SpaceX and current head of executive communications at Facebook, and Kayla-Megan Burns, tech founder and board member at the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, both of whom are attending online.

I would like to begin by asking you both whether you think we are getting it right with regard to how we understand artificial intelligence and the skills that we seek to instil in young people and the wider population. Much of the discussion is about losing jobs and workers being displaced, but I slightly shudder when my daughters come home from school telling me that they are being told that they must not use any AI whatsoever.

My sense is that we should be thinking about what we can use AI for. What are the right questions and the right ways to use it? How we can use AI to maximise our skills and knowledge and the expertise of the wider workforce? What should we be doing to give people the right skills to maximise the use of AI? Dex Hunter-Torricke, I noticed you nodding. Can I bring you in on that question?

Good. We will be interested in exploring the number of strands that you have laid out.

Kayla-Megan Burns, I am mindful that my deputy convener, Michelle Thomson, would like to talk more in depth about the arts, but can I ask you a similar question on skills? From an artistic point of view, what sorts of skills should we be thinking about? Are there as many possibilities as there are risks when you are considering the arts more generally?

Terrific. I would like to bring in Willie Coffey.

I thank the committee for its forbearance in allowing me to speak remotely. I have had to do a bit of juggling this afternoon.

With regard to the amendments, I say up front that I think that Jackie Baillie’s amendment 53 is very important. Having previously spent some time around the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh, I realise that, for many families, healthcare settings are home. They are part of everyday life and the medical teams are part of the extended family, and discussing matters with them seamlessly and on an on-going basis is very much part of the day-to-day norm. The prospect of assisted dying being discussed with a young person in that context is hugely problematic, which is why amendment 53 is so important.

My amendments seek to extend the age limit in amendment 53 a little further. Under previous groups of amendments, we discussed the differences for those who are facing terminal illness earlier in life. There are different considerations for them and there are questions regarding the capacity of people up to the age of 25, when brains are still forming.

My amendment would not withhold treatment for those aged under 25; it is just about recognising that such treatment needs to be dealt with differently.

In that regard, I am careful to state that Jackie Baillie’s amendment is important in its own right. My amendments are simply about exploring whether there is a lighter-touch way to address the point about those aged under 25. They are not about preventing treatment or providing that people aged between 18 and 25 would be precluded from having an assisted death; they would merely provide that the options could not be proactively raised with them. Amendments 53A and 53B would give effect to that.

I note what Liam McArthur is saying, and in a sense, he is right, but would he also observe that those amendments were lodged following the RCN requesting them, so the profession itself is asking for those restrictions? Why does he think that those observations—and, indeed, requests—should be rejected?

Although I very much appreciate having a group entirely to myself, I think that, in some ways, these amendments should be considered with the amendments in the previous group.

To my mind, there are two hugely important elements to the bill. The first is the judgment that will be made by medical practitioners as to whether an individual meets the criteria set out in the bill: that they are terminally ill and unable to recover. In those circumstances, they would meet the criteria for assisted dying.

The other really important element is that individuals will have to fully consider all the options that are available to them. To that end, the 14-day period is doing an awful lot of work, and I am not sure whether it provides a sufficient safeguard. It is an arbitrary time period. It is neither short enough, if death is imminent, nor is it long enough to provide a genuine period of reflection if an individual’s death is not imminent and they are planning ahead of time.

I will not move the amendments, which are probing. I wanted to draw to the committee’s attention the fact that the 14-day period is doing an awful lot of work. There need to be more safeguards to ensure that the individual makes a clear decision. Facing the end of life is clearly going to be difficult and, as human beings, we often find it difficult to make fully rational judgments.

I note that the committee has rejected a large number of amendments that seek the provision of additional information. This is an area that needs to be considered at stage 3 to ensure that people have full information, can reflect and can make a careful and considered decision.

I will not move the amendments at this time.