Chamber and committees

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

After months of uncertainty, the Government has finally confirmed that it is dropping the plan to help people to switch to clean and affordable heating. Just as bills are about to rise again, the First Minister wants to keep people locked into expensive and polluting fossil fuels for even longer.

Scotland has already lost out on manufacturing jobs in building heat pumps. It is an industry that wants to grow, to take on more people and to invest for the future. People need help to make the change, and the industry needs clarity to make it happen. Both are urgently needed if we are to catch up with the missed climate targets, cut people’s bills and create green jobs.

As the SNP slows down on climate action, why does the First Minister think that any clean heat business would bother investing in Scotland now?

That is the opposite of the message that investors and businesses are getting at the moment.

The First Minister knows that the Green plan was always for financial support for households and for clear regulations. Both are essential, but we now know that the Government is not going to do either. If people get the help that they need to make the change, they can save as much as half of their heating bills, which is something that most people would jump at.

However, at the same time as the First Minister is talking about fuel poverty, he is also going to be hammering everyone who rents from a private landlord. From 1 April, at the same time as energy bills are about to rise again, the First Minister is about to permit uncontrolled rent increases on top of that, and he is proposing new rules to make sure that even the highest rents are going to keep on rising even faster than inflation.

People cannot cope with today’s bills, and many will not cope with the benefit cuts that Labour has in store for them. Is it not also becoming increasingly clear that they cannot rely on the Scottish Government to protect them from energy bills or rent hikes?