Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate Emma Roddick on securing it. Having listened to what she has described this evening, I value her knowledge and input. I recognise the concerns that she highlighted in her motion, which reflect my own findings regarding misinformation, extreme nonsense, fake news and the use of AI by bad actors to damage reputations, to exploit people and to harass victims, especially in relation to violence against women and girls. We know that that must be addressed, where possible, by regulation and legislation.

However, it will come as no surprise to colleagues across the chamber to hear that I intend to speak about the potential of AI in healthcare, given that I worked in a tech-driven perioperative environment as a registered nurse.

As we have heard, “artificial intelligence” is a broad term, which spans everything from simple decision trees that are akin to flow charts to complex large language models and generative AI, an example of which is ChatGPT. The risks that are posed by each type of AI are different, and it is important that we are careful not to unintentionally tar all AI models with the same brush. The risks with simpler AI and even machine learning are low in comparison with those that are associated with the deep learning that is used by platforms such as ChatGPT.

It is important to note that we have been using AI safely in healthcare since 2010. We introduced AI to replace the second clinician in our double-reader national diabetic retinopathy screening service. We also use AI in dynamic radiotherapy treatment, paediatric cardiology, paediatric growth measurement and the use of radiology for medical image acquisition, including in CT scans. Therefore, it is important that we carefully consider the risks of not implementing AI, as well as the risks and benefits of implementation. A balance needs to be struck, and we must remain cognisant of the fact that overcaution could lead to slower progress in positive healthcare outcomes.

For example, recent evidence from trials of AI to prioritise cases of suspected lung cancer in Scotland indicates that around 600 more people each year might survive the disease as a result of the introduction of AI alongside other measures to optimise the pathway. It is so important that we create a balance and recognise the distinction between different types of AI, and I ask the minister to keep that in mind when it comes to the development of AI policy.

The performance and risks of AI are highly localised to the context in which it is used and deployed. It is impossible to remove all risk in advance of implementation, and it is essential that we proceed to implement AI. The only way to mitigate and manage risk is to understand the risks, and I suggest that that should be done in healthcare through controlled AI. I recently engaged with a healthcare AI expert, who made the point that, in healthcare, the focus is and must continue to be on humans plus AI, not humans versus AI.

I turn to the need for legislation and regulation on the use of AI. To address Emma Roddick’s point about the dangers of AI, legislation, regulation and policy must all help to make AI safer. It is especially important that we focus on the standards that are necessary in implementing the use of AI in public service. For example, the medical device regulations already govern the use of AI in relation to the investigation, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, monitoring, prediction, prognosis and alleviation of disease, injury or disability.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer—you told me that I had up to four minutes. I recognise and agree with what Emma Roddick has described effectively. I highlight the fact that we can and should progress the use of AI, but we need to manage and mitigate any dangers and risks.

Good morning, minister and officials—thank you for being here.

You say that 2030 is the backstop, but that does not mean that 2030 is when people will start doing the work and making the changes that are needed for all the different schemes, including those that you have discussed. It is not just about LFASS; there are other issues around suckler calves and so on. A lot of schemes need to be developed, and my understanding is that resources are already driving those changes forward.

In the past fortnight, the committee has received a lot of evidence from different people that shows that there is a level of concern. One response says that you

“gave assurances that this does not necessarily mean that schemes ... will go to 2030”.

Can you reassure the committee that, should we approve the SSI today, although 2030 will be the backstop date, that does not mean that nothing else will happen before then?

I quickly put on record that my understanding is that this is a technical statutory instrument. I hear what Rachael Hamilton is saying about the wider issue and the number of people who submitted responses to this statutory instrument. It shows that, as the co-design of the policy moves forward, work needs to be done to promote trust and to engage with the rural and agricultural sector, new farmers, new entrants and all of that. This is a technical instrument, but it highlights and uncovers wider work that we need to be sensitive to when engaging with stakeholders.

Thanks.

We might have strayed a wee bit from the technical aims that the SSI is supposed to be achieving. There has been a lot of discussion about rebasing, retargeting—however we want to describe it—and co-design. Part of what needs to happen is the promotion of trust and engagement, including with young farmers, new entrants and our next-generation farmers, and that is what seems to be coming out of this.

However, I want to bring our discussion back to the fact that we are supposed to be approving the statutory instrument so that payments can continue. Am I correct in understanding that this is a technical instrument?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I appreciate what Maggie Chapman outlined in her opening speech and her examples of what people face, including in relation to GP or health appointments.

Scotland is pursuing its ambition to be a good global citizen by hosting vulnerable people who have fled war and persecution in adherence to the United Nations refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.

All levels of government need to work together and provide tangible improvements for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, has demonstrated that. We need to build consensus. Faced with renewed austerity and brutal Westminster cuts to public services, the Scottish Government is having to make very difficult decisions to deliver a balanced and sustainable spending plan for the 2024-25 financial year.

As a result of being forced to make £500 million of direct cuts, Scottish ministers found that it would be unaffordable to progress piloting free bus travel for asylum seekers in Scotland at this time. That doesnae mean that they do not want to do it; it is just that, at the moment, it is not possible.

The cabinet secretary mentioned that many people seeking asylum in Scotland, including those under 22 and over 60 years of age, as well as those with disabilities, are already eligible.

I do not think that there is time; I am sorry.

People are therefore already eligible for and in receipt of free bus travel through national concessionary travel schemes. I encourage any person in Scotland who is seeking asylum to ensure that they submit their claim.

In addition, the Scottish Government is supporting people seeking asylum through the new Scots refugee integration strategy. The Scottish Government is working collaboratively with partners, including local government and the Scottish Refugee Council. The new Scots strategy delivery plan outlines specific actions that partners will take, and when they will be undertaken, with the aim of ensuring that new Scots live in safe, welcoming and inclusive communities, are able to access well-co-ordinated services, and understand their rights, responsibilities and entitlements in Scotland.

Guided by the strategy’s principles, communities across Scotland are already providing support to refugees and asylum seekers so that they can rebuild their lives and actively participate in society. That is happening well in Dumfries and Galloway, where the local authority has co-ordinated a refugee support network that comprises local people who have stepped up to offer support, clothing and help to refugees in the area.

As migration and refugee policy is reserved to Westminster, it is important to point out the Westminster Government’s failings when it comes to its legal obligations in relation to refugees. Asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants are being shamefully demonised to mask Westminster’s failings. Causing division between different vulnerable people is absolutely deplorable and should be called out. It is time for the UK Government to step up, get rid of the legacy of the Tories’ hostile environment and hostile immigration policies, and support those who will come to Scotland and contribute to our society.

One practical way that that could happen is by allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to society, so that they have meaningful activity. The Scottish Government will always do its best with the powers that it has, but they are simply not a substitute for independence and determining our own policy in relation to migration and asylum.

With the powers of independence, Scotland can finally deliver a fairer asylum and migration system that meets our values and needs as a progressive, forward-thinking nation. Having independent, progressive policies in this place is what we need to do for all our vulnerable people.

You talked about direct funding, children and the removal of members from IJBs. In your negotiations with the Scottish Government—in the tripartite agreement that came to be the way to move forward—what additional reform would you like? What fundamental changes need to happen now?

Okay. You are all members of the expert legislative advisory group. I am interested in hearing about how your experience of working together in order to shape potential proposed amendments has been.

I am finding it really difficult to understand that you had one hour to look at amendments but then had June, July, August and September before you walked away. We have marked-up pages of amendments, with lots of additions in blue and strikethroughs in red. I am trying to understand why that one hour is so significant when no decisions were made about the amendments.