Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 12 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 451 contributions

|

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

I am asking not whether you know what the UK Government really wants yet, but whether, as the UK Government determines what it wants, something akin to a co-decision-making process between the Governments of the UK is emerging. Are you in the position of lobbying someone else who will make the decision, or is there a process of deciding together what our shared priorities are?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

Is there an informal approach that seeks to achieve that, or is the process fundamentally unchanged?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

Thank you.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 20 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

The point about hydrogen infrastructure is certainly relevant, although it is perhaps outwith the scope of this inquiry. If the cabinet secretary could give us in writing any further update on the status of the work on ETS alignment, that would be helpful.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

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.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

Thank you. Professor Schaffer, did you want to add anything on that?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

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?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

That is what you described as the moving target problem. Someone made a comment a few minutes ago that was relevant to that aspect, which was that the EU’s approach seems to be grounded in how AI is deployed in specific contexts, but that changes all the time. If we regulate for particular purposes, an AI system designed for one purpose may end up being trained for a completely different purpose and then used or reused for other purposes altogether, so even the EU’s approach to regulation is not hitting the mark. Is that fair?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

All right—thank you.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Review of the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement

Meeting date: 13 March 2025

Patrick Harvie

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?