Chamber and committees

Good morning, and thank you all for the information that you have submitted in advance—it is really helpful. As you will be aware, people have raised concerns about the scope of the bill and the scale of the challenge. I want to start with a question that Professor Ó Giollagáin included in his paper: is the bill relevant to the primary issue that faces Gaelic speakers in Scotland?

Thank you; that was very clear. We have had evidence that supports what you have said. Specifically, one submission states:

“The Bill as introduced is a cautious and incrementalist measure that should bring some modest improvements over time.”

Is that good enough?

I have one final question, if the convener can indulge me.

We are the education committee and this is largely an education bill. Can you share any information about the direction that ministers gave you about the scope of and detail in the bill?

I am just looking for you to share with us anything about the direction that was given when the bill was being developed.

I have one further question but I will keep it short.

The bòrd has said that it does not know whether the bill adequately recognises the challenges in the community and that that could erode trust and engagement. Are witnesses concerned about that and, if so, what do we need to do differently to keep communities’ trust and engagement?

To make it clear, that was not a statement of the bòrd’s opinion on the bill; it said that it does not know whether the bill does enough to address that. That was the point.

Before I make my point, I clarify that the arguments that I made earlier related to amendments 51 and 52. I mixed up amendment 52 and amendment 55 but—I hope—not my arguments. I hope that that is clear.

Residents are particularly concerned that the bill’s current provisions allow a developer to have almost sole control over the single building assessment for a particular development. Which aspects of the bill can mitigate those concerns?

Amendment 55 is in a similar vein to my amendments in the previous group. The previous group was about a committee for all SBAs and having an independent reviewer. Amendment 55 specifically introduces a provision to make it mandatory for ministers to consult the occupiers and owners in a building before a single building assessment is undertaken on that building under the legislation. Again, that would add the owner/occupier voice to the process.

The amendment has been produced very much in response to a group of residents, of whom I know the minister is aware, who felt that their voice was not fully taken account of in the development of the single building assessment. In some cases, things such as a waking watch were put in place without much consideration for the residents and without giving them advance communication. Although it was necessary at the time, residents felt that that was particularly difficult and that they should have been a bit more involved. Amendment 55 seeks to guarantee that owners and occupiers will have a voice in the creation of single building assessments that are relevant to their building.

On the basis of the minister’s commitment to discuss the issue at stage 3, I am minded not to move the amendment, although I will be looking for significant commitments allowing the committee to oversee the development of single building assessments. That also applies to other amendments in the same group, to which I will come in a moment.

Amendment 51 not moved.