³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thank you.

Thank you—it was helpful to hear your views. Following on from those answers, I am also interested to hear your views on the operation of the statutory process for requesting GME in primary schools. What are your views on its being extended to include Gaelic-medium early learning and childcare? Should there be a right to Gaelic-medium education? Given that I have a Gaelic-medium education primary school in my constituency, I know about some of those issues at first hand.

Mr Charity, do you want to come in on that question? It feeds back into some of the points in your previous answer.

Good morning to the panel. I will build on the previous questions and answers. Do you support the proposal that Scottish ministers should set standards for Gaelic-medium education?

I am absolutely open to and enthusiastic about working with the minister into stage 3, and also with colleagues across the Parliament, as we continue to consider the areas that make the biggest contribution to waste in Scotland.

I thank Sarah Boyack for taking the intervention. To add to Monica Lennon’s points about skills, do colleagues agree that having the necessary infrastructure—places for people to go in order to engage with the circular economy—is important? We will consider that in due course in relation to amendment 128.

I absolutely agree with Mr Doris’s comments. I would add that we need to move to a position where the construction industry can reduce waste in the construction process at the large-scale end of house building all the way to when, for example, somebody refits a bathroom or a kitchen, by thinking about how much reuse there is of those materials. A wholesale approach is needed to enable the construction industry and those who work in it to make an even more significant contribution to the net zero journey.

We have had an important debate on the issues. I have noted the minister’s points and I urge colleagues, including the Government, to think, ahead of stage 3, about the importance of construction in the process and in the legislation’s having an impact and how much more reference we might want to make to construction, whether that is in the bill or not. We will continue that process of consideration together.

Thank you, convener. In speaking to my amendments 122 and 123, I first want to thank the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Building in Scotland for their engagement on the amendments and their collaboration. I also thank the minister for her engagement on the issues that are raised in the amendments and for her comments earlier. I also thank the previous minister, Lorna Slater MSP, and the previous special adviser, Harry Huyton, and acknowledge their important work on the bill. I thank colleagues for their comments on my amendments 122 and 123 while moving their amendments.

During our stage 1 evidence process, we heard a number of contributions emphasising the extent of construction waste in Scotland. Indeed, some stakeholders stated that around 50 per cent of the waste in the Scottish economy comes from construction. Therefore, I thought that it was important to give consideration to whether construction, as such a large contributor of waste in the Scottish economy, should be mentioned in the bill, particularly considering that other specific issues are mentioned in the bill, including single-use items, household waste and littering from vehicles, all of which contribute less to Scotland’s quantum of waste across the board.

However, I listened carefully to what the minister and Mr Golden said about thinking about whether we want to list specific sectors in the bill. In explicitly stating construction work, construction and demolition waste, food waste and household waste in amendment 122, and their definitions in amendment 123, all of which come from the code of practice for managing controlled waste, which is linked to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, I sought to cite not only the construction industry as defined in current regulation and law, but food waste as an area of priority that was raised during our stage 1 evidence, and household waste because it is already mentioned in the bill in other sections.

I take the point about not wanting, at this juncture, to list in the bill particular sectors for inclusion in the strategy, but I ask the minister and colleagues to continue to consider that into stage 3.

The points that have been made by colleagues and the minister about maintaining flexibility are important, but in the current times and for the years ahead, construction will need to be a main area of focus if the bill is to have practical meaning and make the difference that is envisaged. I was therefore pleased to hear the minister’s comments about the route map and I will also be pleased to hear comments from Bob Doris, who wants to come in.

Considering what the minister said and to enable further consideration ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 122.

Amendment 122 not moved.

Amendment 212 not moved.

I just want to be absolutely clear on that point.