Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is quite an optimistic outlook, which is good to hear.

I will follow up on one point you made about protecting intellectual property, which I think is an interesting one for us to look at. I can ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Beethoven, and it will do that. Beethoven is long dead and long out of copyright, so there are no IP issues.

If I ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Lewis Capaldi, it will do that too. However, Lewis Capaldi is still with us, he is still producing music and his music is protected. How does Lewis Capaldi protect his brand when anybody can produce a song that sounds just like him?

You have given us a lot to think about, and some helpful ideas about what changes need to be made in a policy perspective to protect original content. That was very useful—thank you.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses.

Dex, the point that you just made is what I was going to ask about. What does AI mean for the workforce? Last week, we were looking at a report from Microsoft about the sorts of jobs that might suffer from development of AI, and in the top five were writers and authors. What does that mean for human creativity? What will the role be in future for original, human-created output? Is AI effectively just derivative on the work humans have done? If we are squeezing humans out of the picture, what does that mean? Does it mean that we will not have innovation in the future?

Good.

I wish to press amendment 189, but if members are not inclined to support it, I encourage them to support the amendments in the name of Miles Briggs.

I think that that is because those who had the closest interest in the matter would be members of the family of the person who had opted for an assisted death. They would have the closest knowledge of the individual and, therefore, the biggest interest in the matter. One could conceivably extend the provision to any person, but it would be unreasonable to expect a review to be carried out at the request of anyone. The amendment is quite narrowly drawn, so it relates only to next of kin or family members, as they are defined under the original legal definition.

The member makes a reasonable point. The family would have to have a genuine concern that something had happened that was improper in order to be able to ask for a review, but that could happen in such a case.

I have taken a lot of interventions, and I think that I have come to the end of my remarks. I note that my colleague Miles Briggs has two amendments in this group, which I encourage committee members to support.

I move amendment 189.

The purpose of amendment 189 is to allow the next of kin or a relative to request an independent medical review if they believe that the deceased did not meet the eligibility criteria in the bill, in which case two independent doctors who were not involved in the original case must examine all relevant records and, if they find evidence of a breach, refer the matter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The number and outcome of such reviews must be included in the statutory review under section 27 of the bill.

The reason for the amendment is that, when we legislate on life and death, we have a duty not only to write laws that are clear but to ensure that they can be trusted. As it stands, the bill contains no mechanism for what happens when an assisted death may have taken place outside the law. There is no mechanism for families to raise concerns, no means to review what has happened and no pathway to justice if something has gone wrong.

I think that Mr Whittle perhaps misunderstands amendment 189, which relates to a situation in which an assisted death has taken place and the family has concerns that the criteria were not met. In effect, it would enable a family that was concerned to ask for a review of the assisted death process at that point, after the event. It would not impact on the situation to which Mr Whittle refers.

I have two amendments in the group—amendments 199 and 203. Amendment 199 deals with the issue of independent oversight. It proposes the creation of an

“Assisted Dying Safeguards and Oversight Body.”

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for making the arguments as to why some independent oversight is required, although I think that my solution is better than his—he proposes a parliamentary body to oversee operation of the bill, and I propose an independent body. Members will see from the wording of the amendment how that body would be made up.

As Daniel Johnson alluded to, the reason why that is necessary is that, as it stands, the bill relies entirely on internal reporting and ministerial review but does not provide for a permanent independent authority that is charged with monitoring how the bill will operate in practice, ensure compliance with safeguards or investigate when things go wrong. When we are dealing with a new law on life and death, it is essential that we have those safeguards in place. Indeed, as we have seen in other jurisdictions where such oversight is missing, there are risks of a slippery slope, where regulations become loosened over time, eligibility expanded and terminology blurred.

Amendment 199 seeks to prevent that. It would establish an independent safeguard and oversight body with clear and enforceable duties. Its responsibilities would include the need to review every case within 14 days after the substance was provided, maintain a national register of authorised medical professionals, investigate concerns about conduct or competence, audit compliance with law and regulations and publish anonymised data on every assisted death, including demographic and clinical information. The body would be composed of legal, medical, ethical and patient advocacy experts. Crucially, none of its members could be involved in providing assisted suicide themselves. Everyone acting under the act would be legally required to comply with the directions of the independent body.

The amendment is about vigilance. If the Parliament is determined to cross the moral line into assisted suicide, it must not do so blindly or complacently. An oversight body is the minimum protection against the erosion of safeguards and the slow normalisation of assisted suicide that could happen under the bill.

Amendment 203 proposes an adjustment to section 27 of the bill. It would provide that review reports specify how many medical reviews took place, what they discovered and whether any cases were referred for potential prosecution. It would add real transparency and accountability to how the act will operate in practice.