���˿���

Terrific. I would like to bring in Willie Coffey.

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.

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?

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?

I will be speaking to three sets of amendments in this group. Amendments 260, 282 and 286 are in Michael Marra’s name, amendments 18 and 19 are in my name, as are amendments 271, 272, 14 and 15. I should say at this point that I have spoken to more amendments in my colleagues’ names than I have in my own. Members should intimate to them rather than to me whether that has been effective—it would be simply upsetting if they did so directly.

Michael Marra lodged amendment 260 with a view to the resource implications of implementation of the bill. The amendment is modelled on amendments that have been tabled in the Lords to Kim Leadbeater’s bill, which is proceeding through Westminster. The aim is to ensure that there is robust financial oversight and scrutiny before the act is implemented.

As we have seen throughout stage 2, should the bill pass into law, it will establish a number of duties, considerations and undertakings in respect of the many individuals and services that might be involved. Members are also very much aware that those self-same services are not always overburdened with finances and resources. Indeed, in many cases, they are stretched. It is therefore important that we look at what the impacts will be on public services, such as the health service, local government and social services. Amendment 260 seeks to establish those duties for making those assessments and for the Government to provide a report on the findings of that review. Amendments 282 and 286 are consequential to amendment 280.

Amendments 18 and 19 seek to set up a commission to provide oversight of the implementation of the bill, were it to become an act. Again, there has been much discussion about what it is right and proper to put in the bill and to what extent things should be left to practice, procedure, training and guidance. Quite rightly, many of those details are a matter of judgment and practice and it is right that much of the implementation should be left to that sort of approach.

However, as has just been alluded to, the bill is not a normal bill and it is not normal public policy. Some of the detail, subtlety and nuance is incredibly important. We in this place know that scrutinising, let alone amending, anything that is in the form of guidance or secondary legislation is incredibly difficult. Amendment 18 would therefore require the setting up of a cross-party commission, to sit independently, that would provide oversight and guidance to Government when it is drawing those things up. It would not provide a veto, but it would provide a mechanism whereby there is oversight of those important details in the legislation, which is particularly sensitive in that regard.

My amendments 271, 272, 14 and 15 relate to the creation of a sunset clause. I note that the committee recommended that such a sunset clause should be considered during the amending stages of the bill. I think that it should be an important feature of the bill. I do not normally have much time for thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments, but it is very important that, in such important legislation, we provide some guarantees to people that, should a situation arise where the legislation ends up leading to unforeseen circumstances or expanding in ways that we had not intended when passing it, there is an emergency break, or in other words, a release valve.

That said, I was not entirely clear on precisely what length of time would be appropriate. The original amendment 14 sets a time period of five years, but I recognise that that might be too short, so I have tried to create a set of options for the committee. In terms of sequencing, amendment 271, which provides the option of a sunset clause set at 15 years, should be taken first; followed by amendment 272, which would set it at 10 years; and then finally by amendment 14, which would set it at five years. Amendment 15 would apply the affirmative procedure, in other words, that there would have to be a Parliamentary vote in order for the legislation to continue. That would be a one-off decision by the Parliament; it would not reoccur or repeat. I hope that it would provide the Parliament with the ability to have a say, to ensure that what was intended is what has come into effect, and to provide reassurance to people who have concerns about what effect the bill might end up having in future years. I will close my remarks there.

Forgive me, convener. I move amendment 7.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 112 not moved.

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.

I support the amendments that have been lodged by Jackie Baillie, which have the support of the Royal College of Nursing. We must have clarity on roles. The final provision of the substance is particularly sensitive. It is also important that we have clarity about not only the role of the registered medical practitioner but those of other medical professionals and in what combination those roles take place. The role of nurses and the points about accompaniment and supervision are very important.

I voted for the bill at stage 1 on the basis of the principle that people should have bodily autonomy, and because the bill is very much about people whose death is imminent and enabling them to make the final decision and to carry out the final act.

That last point is very important to me, which is why I have lodged amendment 10. Although I note the intent of the legislation and what is set out in the policy memorandum, I am concerned that there is not sufficient clarity that the final act will be that of the individual. My amendment seeks to specify that, for similar reasons to those that Marie McNair pointed out.

Throughout the discussion, great care has been taken about the language—whether this is assisted dying or suicide—and the bill very much rejects any notion that this could be viewed as euthanasia. I understand that. Those are important distinctions. It is important that this is about enabling someone to act for themselves and do this to themselves. It cannot be about enabling an act in which one person is administering a substance to another.

There is a big difference between enabling someone to end their life and enabling others to end others’ lives. One is about enabling one’s own death. The other is, quite simply—as a matter of moral distinction—killing another person. I use that word advisedly because there is an important moral distinction. It is easy in these settings to highlight the complexity and say that, in practical terms, there are not necessarily those distinctions, but the moral differences are important.

I also think that, practically, it is essential that an individual has the ability to withdraw their consent to ending their own life up until the very final moment, which is why self-administration is so important. My amendment seeks to clarify that, because there are also sensitivities about a person’s physical capacity to undertake that.

The amendment specifies that the act would be for the individual to carry out, and specifies that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may

“prepare that substance for use by the adult ... prepare a medical device which will enable the adult to use the substance”

and assist the adult for the final ingestion of the substance.

My amendment further clarifies that, those points notwithstanding, the final decision must be made by the individual themselves and, further, that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may not administer the approved substance to the individual directly.

Those are important clarifications that state clearly and specifically what the bill would authorise. As I have stated, I think that it is important that we have that moral clarity and that moral distinction, but, ultimately, it is vital that it is the individual’s choice and that they can withdraw their consent right up until the final moment. That is the reason for my amendment 10.