The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1783 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
I am really interested in the conversations that have taken place about the work of Dr Gerald Lip.
Earlier this year, I lodged a motion in the Parliament to highlight Dr Lip’s contribution to large-scale clinical trials using AI, particularly the GEMINI project—Grampian’s evaluation of Mia in an innovative national breast screening initiative. I believe that his work has led to 12 per cent more cancers being detected than has been the case in routine practice, which is quite incredible.
If we look at the cost aspect of all that, we might view it not only in budgetary terms but in human cost terms. Surely such an advance is great for all of us. The human cost of an early diagnosis is better for the patient, so the human cost of their illness is likely to be lessened. Looked at from the perspective of health economics or societal economics, getting a diagnosis and treatment more quickly, which is likely to lead to better outcomes, should also mean that that person can be fit and healthy again and get back to being productive.
We should be talking more about the Gerald Lips of this world. Why are more universities, hospitals and health boards not looking to create the type of appointments that Dr Lip has, in leading the use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice? Why are we not moving such activities on more quickly? Why are we not using Gerald Lip as something of an evangelist? Why are we not hearing more about that kind of work?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
I am sorry to interrupt. Obtaining funding is always a challenge—there is no doubt about that. However, the reality is that, alongside the lessening of the human cost, the savings here could be huge. If we were detecting illnesses and treating people more quickly, the outcomes would be likely to be much more positive, which would mean that a person could become productive again more quickly.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
That is because the UK is very backward in such regards, whereas health economics in other parts of the world is much more sophisticated in that it looks at the whole-life aspect of treatment. I could give other examples, but I will not because they do not relate to AI. However, such examples exist in other areas. Dr Lip is the lead on artificial intelligence in clinical practice at the University of Aberdeen. We should have somebody doing a study of his work from the health economics side, which would build an even bigger case for advancing the use of AI in our health services.
I notice that Heather Thomson wants to come in.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
Let me explain myself, Professor Schaffer. I am not slagging off health economists—I know a number of them, and I might get myself into trouble. I am simply saying that politicians do not look holistically at all the work that health economists do.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
I missed that—I am sorry.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
Thank you very much, convener, and good morning.
The bill does not explicitly set out that undertaking licensed or consented activities cannot constitute ecocide or provide a defence along those lines. Different sectors have raised a number of concerns about that, including in evidence during our hearings on the bill from representatives of farming, fishing and renewables. Is the approach in the bill appropriate? What are the implications for regulatory certainty? I will go to Clare Moran first.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
That would be useful.
Equally, there is no defence in the bill that would apparently prevent a regulator or consenting body from being held liable for ecocide. Again, as mentioned by Murdo MacLeod, that is in contrast to the 2014 act, which sets out defences on the side of the regulator and on the side of the operator for authorised acts. Should regulators be protected from liability for environmental harm when issuing consents under the relevant legislation, or are there instances where a regulator should be held liable?
I have to say that certain aspects of this issue have caused quite a lot of consternation as our hearings have gone on, certainly leading to food for thought for the likes of councillors who serve on planning committees. We will start with Rachael Weir this time.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
I am sure that Iain Batho is going to tell me exactly the same thing.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
Okay, thanks.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kevin Stewart
But it would be fair to say that the bill provides no comfort for consenters.
I have one final question, convener. Murdo MacLeod mentioned that this Parliament is currently looking at the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. The stealing of dogs is already a criminal offence, as we all know. That makes me wonder whether we get our legislative priorities right as a Parliament. There have been indications today from the panel that, rather than pass this new bill, one of the options would be to go back and look at the 2014 act, and maybe change aspects of it, including the possibility of increasing sentences under that act. Is it fair to say that, Iain?