���˿���

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?

I have one question on the principle and one that is more practical.

On the principle, there is still a concern that major constitutional change requires democratic legitimacy. When this Parliament was created and given authority over devolved policy areas, the public had been asked for consent for that major change to the constitutional framework of Scotland, and they said yes.

When the UK Government proposed to leave the European Union, much as I regret the fact that the question was answered as it was, at least the public were asked the question, and 52 per cent of people UK-wide and 38 per cent in Scotland said yes. Even at that time, the subsequent constitutional changes that are now represented in UKIMA were not proposals that were on the table. Nobody in any part of the UK or Scotland said yes to those major constitutional changes, and Scotland’s Parliament said no to them.

Whatever changes emerge from the UK Government’s review, how can we achieve democratic legitimacy, which is currently lacking, for the new constitutional framework, which will continue, on some level, to constrain the powers that were given to this Parliament by the public?

Am I right that you are emphasising the consent of devolved Parliaments rather than the consent of governments, because common frameworks rest on governmental agreements?

Professor McHarg has moved on to the more practical areas that I was going to follow up on—the changes that we might actually see as being politically realistic.

I am clearly going to lean towards the view that we do not need such a framework. For well over a decade, the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament made decisions and legislated on areas that impact on business interests and others, while consulting at the same time on charity law, planning law, water-quality regulations and a great many other issues. They heard from the same stakeholders, understood the consequences of divergence or of making different decisions, and made political judgments that were accountable to the electorate on whether areas of divergence were justified. I would prefer that we got back to that way of doing things. However, it seems to be likely that, even if the UK Government wants to put a bit more emphasis on common frameworks, UKIMA or something very like it will remain in the background, with a degree of change.

Professor Horsley talked about shifting the burden of proof. It seems to me that that would be a significant improvement, but I am not sure that it would deal with the question of uncertainty, either for business interests or for policy makers who are seeking to innovate, who would still not know what they are ultimately allowed to do.

In oral and written evidence, there has been discussion about the grounds for exclusion. Should there be a longer specific list of grounds for exclusion, or should there be something that is more open-ended? Could you explore the options and the tensions in having a specific list of policy areas or list of principles? For example, if a devolved Government is implementing a manifesto commitment, that should be protected: there would be a democratic argument for that, or for something that is more open-ended in the exclusions process and how it works. What are the tensions between the approaches?

I have one question on the principle and one that is more practical.

On the principle, there is still a concern that major constitutional change requires democratic legitimacy. When this Parliament was created and given authority over devolved policy areas, the public had been asked for consent for that major change to the constitutional framework of Scotland, and they said yes.

When the UK Government proposed to leave the European Union, much as I regret the fact that the question was answered as it was, at least the public were asked the question, and 52 per cent of people UK-wide and 38 per cent in Scotland said yes. Even at that time, the subsequent constitutional changes that are now represented in UKIMA were not proposals that were on the table. Nobody in any part of the UK or Scotland said yes to those major constitutional changes, and Scotland’s Parliament said no to them.

Whatever changes emerge from the UK Government’s review, how can we achieve democratic legitimacy, which is currently lacking, for the new constitutional framework, which will continue, on some level, to constrain the powers that were given to this Parliament by the public?

Thank you both very much. I would just maybe ask for a trigger warning in advance of anyone using the word “trumped” in future.

Are there any other views on that question?