 I'm excited with business, the debate on motion 10307, the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on stemming the plastic tide, action to tackle the impact of single-use plastics on land and in our seas. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call Rosanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion, Ms Cunningham, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this chamber who has spent the last six weeks or so surveying their own plastic usage and becoming dismayed at the ubiquity of plastic in our daily lives. We are living through an extraordinary moment of individual and collective self-scrishiny, clearly influenced by all that we have seen on Blue Planet 2. Having an intellectual understanding of the damage caused by plastics in our environment and seeing the graphic and distressing consequences of it in the real world are two vastly different things. The academic has moved to the real and everyone has woken up to the need for action. As individuals, as a society, as a Government, there can be no doubt that we have reached a turning point in public acceptance of the need for radical change, but that change won't be easy. Plastic has become a fundamental part of our lives. The pen that I write with, the credit card that I use, the takeaway coffee cups and disposable cutlery, we wrap our food in it, store our food in it, build with it, it would be all too easy to feel overwhelmed at the challenge. We might not be able to eradicate all plastics from our lives, but that shouldn't prevent us from removing its usage where we can. The best way to approach it is, I think, the simplest way to return to the reduced, reused, recycled mantra, and Claudia Beamish may smile at that, because that clarification came out of a conversation with Claudia Beamish herself. First reducing its source through changes in manufacturing and production, and also reducing demand by changing consumer behaviour. There is a role for government, yes, but also for manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Legislation might work, but whether we like it or not, legislation takes time. The next straw at all campaign is leading the way, working faster than we could, showing what can be achieved when an idea's time has come and people get behind it. We're already acting to reduce the use of single-use plastics and directly address marine litter. Last month, I announced our intention to ban the manufacture and sale of plastic stem cotton buds in Scotland, building on recent steps taken to ban the sale of rinse-off personal care products containing microbeads. I took this decision because of compelling evidence about the harm that these plastic stems are doing to our natural environment, and because alternative biodegradable options are readily available. These are just two items in what is a long list of the types of litter washing up on our shores—wet wipes. The plastic cotton bud stems have already indicated drinks containers, packaging from crisps, sandwiches and sweets, bottle caps and other plastic in the form of large items and small fragments, barely recognisable, including nerddles. There is our starter for 10. However, in taking action, it is vitally important that we do not inadvertently disadvantage groups within society or damage the environment by encouraging the use of an alternative that itself raises environmental concerns. For example, there are legitimate concerns expressed by disabled people, which we must all hear and pay heed to. We need to recognise the benefits that the use of plastics brings to many. Local person households, low-income families and older people all benefit from having affordable access to hygienically-wrapped, prepared fruit and vegetables. I will also meet with disabled people and representatives from other groups to help to ensure that our thinking on those matters is grounded in real-world understanding. I can also announce that I will appoint a disability adviser to the expert panel that I am setting up as a part of our programme for government to provide advice on action to help to reduce the use of single-use items. That will ensure that the panel takes a fully rounded approach and considers all the evidence and consequences before making recommendations. In some areas, it is not clear what powers are available to this Parliament to tackle issues. Some might be reserved. We therefore need to develop the evidence-based quickly to allow us to act in a planned, considered and co-ordinated way on the things that will make the greatest difference. I will refer items such as plastic straws and disposable cups to the expert panel to consider how to reduce their use. Cutting the use of plastic where possible is reducing and not throwing away—that is possible—reuse or recycling. The issue of single-use plastic, which I have just discussed, is probably the biggest part of the challenge to other plastics that may not be single-use, is also a problem. Keeping items in circulation makes a difference. There is also a challenge from hidden plastics, such as the substances in cigarette papers and teabags, which may have surprised many people. When you really cannot or will not hang on to that item any longer, where does it go? How is it treated? Any deposit return system that we introduce will have to provide a route through which drinks containers can be collected with minimal contamination for high-value recycling. That is the reason that we are taking the time to develop a Scottish solution rather than an important model from elsewhere. In late summer, I expect to consult in a range of options for the new system and the types of containers that it will collect. I want to see an ambitious modern deposit return scheme that covers not only plastic, but potentially cans and glass bottles so that we are capturing as much material as possible and sending it for high-value recycling. Rather than taking actions in a piecemeal way, we have to grasp the full potential, not just to drive environmental benefit but to build a truly resource-efficient Scottish economy that harnesses new technology, creates new jobs and develops new skills. That means catalyzing the innovation and infrastructure in Scotland that is required to make full use of materials. Innovations such as Project Beacon combine a variety of new technologies to sort and process different types of plastic. Together, the SMEs behind Project Beacon have been awarded more than £1 million from our Circular Economy Investment Fund and are exactly the type of approach that Scotland can and must encourage. At this point, how unhelpful it is to have the Conservatives trying to shoehorn the issue of incinerators into this debate? It is an important issue, yes, but needs to be dealt with in a far more thoughtful manner. While we must do all that we can to stem the plastic type that is lapping at Scotland's shores, plastics, of course, are a global problem. A global problem requires global action, and we are determined that Scotland plays its part. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. I share some of her concerns about the way in which the issue has been shoehorned into the debate. Nevertheless, it is an important debate, and it will be helpful if she could give a commitment to set aside Government time for a wider discussion on the issue of incineration. I would be happy to do that and to talk to any members who are particularly concerned about the issue as well. Later this year, we are going to house an OSPAR inter-sessional correspondence group for marine litter. As announced in the programme for government, we will also hold an international conference in 2019 to discuss collective action on marine litter. I also welcome the EU's proposal to require that all single-use plastics be reusable or easily recycled by 2030. That is exactly the sort of market signal that industry needs, and I have no hesitation in signing Scotland up to this vision, Brexit or no Brexit. We are being reminded daily that people make change happen. From Aberdeenshire to Ayrshire, inspiring campaigns and grassroots action are revolutionising attitudes without the intervention of politicians. People like the children of Sunnyside primary, communities like Ullipull, who are tackling plastic straw use, head on. The children of Gullin, who are busy trying to help to clean up the beach there. The P3 children in our ladies primary in my constituency with our wild bottle sighting campaign. I want to pay tribute to every individual who takes action to stem our plastic tide, the people who pick up litter on their way to work, who support community and beach cleans, and to recognise the valuable work of charities, including the Marine Conservation Society and FEDRA, for organising events such as the Great Nerdle Hunt, which collected over half a million plastic nerdles during an eight-hour beach clean on the Firth of Forth. Nerdles and beach litter, in general, is a hugely important issue, and that is why we have committed £500,000 to begin to address litter sinks around the coastline of Scotland. I can also announce that, on 18 June, I will host a national summit on marine litter in Oban. The summit will bring together manufacturers and retailers, marine and environmental stakeholders and, crucially, people who live in our coastal communities who are most affected by marine litter. The summit will aim to help to identify and develop actions that we can all take to tackle this issue. We cannot and must not leave this issue to someone else to tackle. It is not someone else's problem, it is everyone's problem. All around Scotland, communities, individuals and charities are doing amazing things, big and small, organised and spontaneous. We can be proud that, when Sir David Attenborough's Blue Planet 2 struck a chord on a Sunday night, Scotland stepped into action on the Monday morning. We know that many were already tackling this. Those campaigns and actions have created an energy for change that we must not waste. We must take an evidence-based approach, consider where further legislation is needed but not wait for the law to change if we can just get on and change our behaviours as suppliers and consumers. Scotland has been voted the most beautiful country in the world. It is our duty and privilege to protect and enhance that beauty and take bold steps where they are available to us to stem the plastic tide. Having given you an extra minute to play with, I move the motion in my name. The cabinet secretary is quite right to let quite rightly the previous item overran considerably. The open debate speakers have agreed to cut their time. I am therefore asking and requiring all open speakers to cut their speeches to no more than four minutes and thirty seconds, which will allow everybody to come into the debate who wants to. Everybody is on the same tight rope and everybody is having to give up some time. You look bewildered, Ms Beamish. I thought that you knew about it. I am sure that you can manage. I call Maurice Golden, please, to speak to and move amendment 10307.1. Seven minutes, please, Mr Golden. I refer members to my register of interests with respect to Zero Waste Scotland. Having listened to the cabinet secretary, I like her starter for 10, as she described it. In the motion, there is much that we agree with in terms of having an evidence-based approach, looking at encouraging behaviour change and also seeking legislative solutions where necessary and appropriate. Similarly, Mark Ruskell's amendment is one that we can support. In terms of those microfibers, it is one that we need to address as they do harm humans as well as animals, particularly marine animals. I think that there is an issue that I would hope he may address while I appreciate time will be short in terms of synthetic versus natural fibres, as sometimes the life-cycle assessment for products made with cotton, for example, can be higher than those synthetics. Until we get the dream goal of fibre-to-fibre recycling of textiles, that could also prove tricky. I think that the Love Your Clothes campaign in terms of how we go about laundering our clothes is something that could be helpful on that. In addition, with Claudia Beamish's amendment, we very much agree and are supportive of that in terms of developing an alternative to materials to single-use plastic. I think that where we can, it is something that we should do either by banning or by using other economic instruments where there is viable alternatives. In terms of the remanufacturing of plastics, to be fair to the Scottish Government, it is certainly supporting that through the Strathclyde Institute of Remanufacturing and certainly helping to lead the way in that context. My amendment in terms of ensuring that new insuriation facilities are not allowed to be built in Scotland—I will move amendment in my name at this point—is that if we are going to do all the positive work that has been said around plastics and around this agenda, it would be incongruous to then see Scotland be the ashtray of Europe by— Fulton MacGregor. Does the member accept that this amendment is just an attempt to hijack a very important debate and is an attack on local democracy? Can he tell me why his three Tory central list Scotland colleagues did not bother putting in an objection to the proposed incinerator at Carambrough, like I did? Maurice Golden Well, you could have had a word with your ministers in the SNP Government and ensured that there will be a moratorium on all incineration. It is quite right and quite appropriate that if we are serious about tackling climate change, we do not see a 12-fold increase in incineration capacity over the next five years. It is quite within the right of local authorities to look to build new incineration capacity, but it is a requirement of central government to look at how that fits with our wider goals. Incineration certainly does not make sense to take products that have been produced halfway around the world, being used for a very short time and then immediately burned them. Therefore, I appreciate that time is now very short, in terms of the rest of the aspects. As we know, 80 per cent of litter in the sea comes from land, and there is an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic that ends up in our oceans every year. In fact, by 2050, there is estimated to be more plastic in the oceans by weight than there will be fish, which is very worrying statistic. Over 250 marine species are already ingesting plastic litter—a concern for us all. One of the ways in which we can begin to tackle this is through producer responsibility. Essentially, that helps to make sure that those who produce the product will also pay for the cost of its waste disposal. It can also help to influence design. Designing for disassembly, repair and, indeed, designing for prevention of litter is critically important. If you cast your minds back to the aluminium cans of the past where you had a ring pool, that ring pool was often the part that was littered, and then we redesigned it so that the ring pool remained on the can. Similarly, thinking about confectionary wrappers, if we can ensure that the plastic contained in those does not tear off when you are taking your chocolate bar and taking a piece of chocolate, it is often that little bit that rips off that is then littered that is difficult to collect. Therefore, if we can enhance producer responsibility, we can redesign those wrappers so that they do not rip off so easily, so that you are more likely to put it in a bin, and ultimately that will help to tackle litter and to prevent some of the environmental harm. We also need to look at viable alternatives to plastic. For example, in Edinburgh we have Vegware, which is a company that makes catering disposables from plant-based materials instead of plastics. I am sure that other companies are available as well. However, this certified compostable packaging degrades in 12 weeks, which is more advantageous than the 500 years that could for plastics. We also need to step up our game in terms of recycling targets. Our recycling rate in Scotland is plateauing and we are very much in danger of missing the 2025 target, so that needs to be improved as well. Deposit return will be covered by my colleague Maurice Corry, but we will have a part to play in this if we can design the correct scheme, ideally a pan UK system. Overall on litter, there is a role for increasing fines for SIPA to investigate fly-tipping in particular and also to ensure that we have that behaviour change. Ultimately, we need producer responsibility, we need to prevent our waste, increase recycling, look at deposit return and behaviour change on litter, and that takes me to my seven minutes. Claudia Beamish I welcome the Scottish Government's motion for debate today and add Labour's voice to the call to ban single plastic use in Scotland by 2030. If we were to visualise our own individual trail of plastic waste, we would all be horrified and now many of us have done it. Now the conversation about single plastic is wide open and we can identify more products that are so unnecessarily single use—water bottles, cotton straws, cotton buds, micro beads and cosmetics, wet wipes and much more. I recently was contacted by a constituent who highlighted the wastefulness of crisp packets and it has stressed to me how this issue is in the forefront of the collective consciousness. Reducing the use of these items is a first step and I reiterate my support for the developing bands. The alternatives are already there and they are often money-saving too, for example, keep cups, bags for life, menstrual cups and while a teacher in a primary school in South Lanarkshire, the pupils bought in proper water bottles from home to refill at the tap rather than having their water bottles delivered each day from the council. Indeed, this week the EU have announced it will oblige national governments to provide greater access to drinking fountains to clamp down on plastic waste. Some packaging does not even have the information about whether it is recyclable or not, such as this one here. Without shaming any particular supermarket, one challenge for the regulators is setting the standards for what is on the bottom of a packet. I congratulate all the private sector initiatives tackling the issue. Among others, the Scottish Whiskey Association has committed to phasing out plastic straws and stirrers on top of all packaging being 100 per cent recyclable by 2020. The public sector is vital as well. South Lanarkshire Council's Catherine McClimbant, one of our councillors, is leading on a motion to address the issue of single plastics and I encourage others in the public sector to follow suit. I do not have time today, I am sorry. It is essential that the Scottish Government gives guidance and support to manufacturers who are changing the materials that they use as reflected in our amendment today. The successful design of a deposit return scheme in Scotland is a real opportunity for environmental progress. The British Plastics Foundation state that making bottles out of 100 per cent recycled plastic uses 75 per cent less energy than creating plastic bottles from initial plastic. It has been a year since the Scottish Labour and Opposition parties called for the introduction of DRS. While progress is slow, I understand the reasons for that. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is now working to develop a scheme that is right for Scotland. The UK Government is also supportive with a working group. However, although UK-wide compatibility is really pretty essential, I am determined, along with others here, that Scotland has the most ambitious scheme possible and that it is not a race to the bottom. We must pull the Tory Government up with us rather than the other way round. Rural businesses and those for small businesses must be addressed. Social injustice must not be a feature of our RDS. There is also huge potential for remanufacturing in Scotland. Reaching a more circular economy rests heavily on public behaviour change, and this Parliament will do all it can to foster and enable the change. With the circular economy bill coming up in this session, the public interest is encouraging and reimagining single-use products in an environmentally sound framework will require the right skills and education. Friends of the earth are calling for, in their briefing, no fracking for packing. They call on Ineos to plan its transition to a low-carbon model with a focus on recycling. Creative thinking is exemplified by McCreabour, a South Scotland company that has innovated a new road surface made of waste pellets of plastic and of flakes. This remanufacturing has created a solution that does not use tarmac. This is exactly the sort of enterprise that the Scottish Government should be nurturing. Indeed, as the cabinet secretary has highlighted today in many ways already is, incineration certainly merits analysis in this context of the circular economy. However, we will be abstaining on the Tory amendment today, because further exploration is needed on the merits of a moratorium on the effects on new facilities in terms of capacity, exemptions, public health, community concern and readiness with alternatives. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has made the offer of a debate today, and in fact Monica Lennon has already requested a member's debate. That is for another time. Finally, we must clean up all the damage that has been done—the plastic clogging our coastlines and threatening our marine life. I once again play tribute to Sorica Cantwell, who is the hero of the month for Keep Scotland Beautiful. Sorica also highlighted to me the concern about small harbours. It is only the large harbours at the moment that get money to support their fishing for litter campaign, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that. The rapidly growing plastic manufacturing industry has created an endemic problem of plastic pollution and the convenience of single-use plastic. However, let Scotland rise to the challenge as we are, and individuals make conscious choices and, as a Parliament, let us lead by example. I move the motion in my name, the amendment, rather. Thank you very much. I now call Mark Ruskell to speak to move amendment 103 or 7.26. Minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. The great surge in public awareness around the health of our seas has been building now for many years. Documentary films such as Plastic Ocean and Blue Planet have taken us to places of such spectacular beauty that we could scarcely imagine that they even existed. However, they have also shown us how our blasé throwaway culture has blighted the farthest reaches of the deepest oceans. From the polluted gut of an albatross chick to the plastic bottles now lining ocean trenches, those stories remind us that we are never separate from the natural world. The Greens broadly welcome the Government motion today, and it is emerging work in this area. The only word that I would pick up on is the word litter. We need to reframe the plastic problem as plastic pollution rather than just litter. The plastic problem is not simply a matter of picking up waste and keeping things tidy. Viewing plastic debris simply as litter is even supported by the plastics industry itself. It is more accurate for us to describe this plastic as pollution, because plastic is a harmful substance that degrades into smaller micro particles over time, entering food chains and contaminating the world around us. The Green amendment focuses on one of the major sources of marine plastic pollution that so far Governments have not taken any action on, microfibers. Microfibers come mostly from our synthetic clothing, they enter the water cycle from our washing machines and pass into our rivers and seas unnoticed and unmonitored. They enter the food chain, being initially eaten by plankton, shellfish and smallfish, working their way up to the chain to humans. Microfibers have even been found in honey, beer and in most of the world's tap water supplies. We have probably all bought at some point a fleece and forward thinking companies like Patagonia develop the use of fleece garments as a way to recycle plastics such as milk bottles in the 1980s. Researchers have shown that a single polyester fleece jumper can lose almost a million microfibers every single wash. Many of the chemicals that are attracted to and cling to plastic microfibers are long-lived, accumulative toxic organic pollutants such as PCBs. They concentrate on the food chain, are stored in body fat and are the chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and the disruption of development hormones. Many plastics also release their own toxic chemicals as they break down such as styrene. Microfibers effectively multiply the effects from toxic chemicals that are already a growing problem in our environment. Presiding Officer, this all sounds pretty scary, but we have a pollution problem with microfibers that can largely be solved by mechanical means. To give Patagonia some credit, the company has supported the development of mesh laundry bags that effectively trap microfibers. There are also filtration devices that can be applied to washing machine outflows and laundry balls that can attract microfibre loadings in the water. Just as we saw the introduction of catalytic converters on cars, so we can screen out microfibers from the water cycle with the correct technology and product standards alongside the development of fabrics that shed less fibre in the first place. So far, it appears through answers to my written questions that the Scottish Government has not had a focus on the microfibre issue. I urge the Cabinet Secretary to progress this work with stakeholders, including industry, the EU and other Governments. Perhaps the forthcoming national summit in Oben would be a good opportunity for Scotland to take a lead and to focus in on this growing issue. I would like to focus my remaining time on some guiding principles about how we tackle plastic pollution. Firstly, the waste hierarchy, as the Cabinet Secretary has already mentioned, is essential in guiding any strategy. Prevention and reduction of waste needs to be the top priority, followed by reuse, then recycling and other recovery methods. Incineration is not an acceptable way to deal with hard-to-treat domestic plastic waste. If it is that hard to recycle, we should not be producing it in the first place. I accept the Cabinet Secretary's approach that each type of product on the plastic pollution list from drinking straws, cotton buds, ketchup, sachets and nerddles, needs to be considered individually. The availability of alternative materials, the harm that the plastic item causes, its pattern of use and the value of materials that can be recovered from it will all be different from one product to the next. We should also consider a hierarchy of useful plastics. Placing products used in engineering or medical use at the top while giving far less importance to single-use plastics, such as food packaging, which can and should be phased out. There are then lots of tools in the box that we have to tackle plastic pollution, from immediate bans to phased-out deadlines, levies, producer responsibility systems and deposit return. I look forward to hearing and reflecting on members' thoughts on those during the debate. Our planet is in the middle of the Holocene extinction, the sixth tumultuous extinction event that life on earth has had to endure. The ravages of climate change and habitat loss will only be intensified by the plastic pollution that poisons, chokes, sterilises and destroys. We need to end this wasteful age of plastic. I move amendment in my name. I thank all the opening speakers for keeping their time. That is a practice now being continued by all the open debate speakers. Kate Forbes, followed by John Scott, no longer than four and a half minutes, please. Fast food restaurants in the EU are apparently using enough plastic straws every year to get to the moon and back 10 times. If you are shocked by that, bear in mind that that is just one type of disposable plastic from one part of the hospitality industry in one area of the world. Plastic straws are one of the top 10 items of plastic litter found on our beaches, and the people who know that better than anybody else are the beach cleaners that are out in the sands wrapped up against the bitter wind, gloves on and picking up an average of 718 bits of rubbish every 100 metres. There is public appetite for change, for real transformation, but no change should put greater burdens on people with disabilities or people who need to use straws. That is why the cabinet secretary's announcement today of an adviser who will represent the views of those with disabilities on the expert panel on plastics is so important. In the month since I launched my final straw campaign calling for a ban on plastic straws, we have delivered change. I am absolutely delighted to say that 11 local authorities have all pledged to eliminate plastic straws and an additional six are reviewing the use of plastic straws on their sites. I am still awaiting Highland Council's response, and as my own local council, with an extensive coastline, I would hope that they too back the campaign as Corian and Ellen Shear, Glasgow City Council and North Ayrshire Council have all done so. On top of that, public bodies have risen to the challenge. The National Museums of Scotland is one of the latest public bodies to support the final straw campaign. As of this month, unpackaged plastic straws are no longer available at any of the catering outlets throughout the National Museums of Scotland. That comes after a series of public bodies have pledged to back the campaign and ban plastic straws from their sites. Each of them deserve our gratitude for playing their part in improving the environment by ditching plastics. In the last month, CalMac, ScotRail, Scottish Water, Historic Environment Scotland, National Galleries, the courts, SNH, Visit Scotland and, just last week, our very own Parliament have all backed the final straw campaign to ditch the use of plastic straws. Now that public bodies have risen to the occasion, we are switching the focus to private companies. It is not fair that full responsibility lies with consumers and customers to say no, no when their drink is served with several plastic straws, uncalled for, unwanted, ununneeded, and full credit must go to coffee chains like Costa Coffee and fabulous cafes like Mimi's Bakehouse for already banning plastic straws. However, so long as there are alternatives for those who need straws, supermarkets should also ban plastic straws from their shelves and from cafes. This week, as announced, it was using 2.4 million straws per year in its cafes alone and that it was going to ditch plastic straws. I wrote to all major supermarkets, from Tesco to Sainsbury's and Morrison's, among others, calling for them to get plastic straws off their shelves out of their cafes and to ensure that there were cheap, readily accessible alternatives instead. The first response that I received was from Waitrose. Hot off the press at 3.20pm today, Waitrose has pledged to stop selling packs of disposable plastic straws as of September 2018. There is a sense of change in the air and it is a change that is being driven by primary schools, by the public, by public and private bodies who are voluntarily making a difference and they deserve the credit, credit where credit is due. Thank you very much. I call John Scott. We follow by Tom Arthur. Mr Scott, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by welcoming this debate today and say that I could not agree more with it. I am representing air constituency. I know at my own local level just what a problem litter and particularly plastic litter is on our magnificent golden Ayrshire beaches. It should not be necessary for our council to have to clear the beaches of Ayrpresswick and Trun, but they have to do this to make these beaches clean and welcoming for our many summer visitors. It should not be necessary for Ayr rotary of which I am a member to have to organise litter picking of the dunes and beach as well before Easter every year, but they do and they and I are grateful for the support of the Cubs, the Scouts and the wider local community who turn out to help. After all, Ayr beach is the busiest beach in Scotland and we are all proud of it. We must welcome the House of Commons report on plastic bottles turning back the plastic tide. Note that of the 13 billion plastic bottles produced in the UK every year, 7.5 billion only are recycled with the remaining 5.5 billion being landfill, littered or incinerated, apparently resulting in 233,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Apparently also plastic bottles make up a third of all plastic pollution in our seas and oceans and that is why I support a deposit return scheme on plastic bottles. While I note that in 2001 only 1 per cent of plastic bottles were recycled and today 57 per cent are recycled, apparently 700,000 plastic bottles are littered every day in the UK with all too many of them ending up in the sea. If bottles are to be further encouraged to be recycled, we must use easily recyclable plastic in those bottles in the first place, as in Norway, where 98 per cent of plastic bottles are recycled. Following on from that, we must seek to incentivise producers of plastic bottles and other plastic materials to use easily recyclable, simple plastics. Quite apart from the environment in which we live and of which we are part, the more I become aware of the degradation process of plastics and microfibers in our seas, the more concerned I am about the human health implications of eating fish and seafood on a regular basis. The recent research from Harriet Watt University, which found the level of microplastics to be the same in the first of Clyde, the first of fourth and the Scapa Flow, illustrates that concern. Self-evidently, microf plastics and microfibers, indistinguishable from plankton, are more and more being ingested by fish and mollusks, and therefore by those of us who frequently eat seafood. I wonder what that is doing over time to the vital organs in our own bodies and what research, if any, has been undertaken to find out the level of plastics and microfibers to be found in human organs. Single-use coffee cups should be replaced by more sustainable cups, and perhaps it is back to the enamel-coated tin cups of y year, seemingly always chipped, as I remember, but certainly unbreakable and light in weight in part of every peace bag 50 years ago. Perhaps this debate is becoming a genuine back-to-the-future debate, and I again note from the House of Commons report the recommendation of the installation of drinking water ffountains long since removed from public places in school playgrounds. Not only must we consider the above measures, but also carefully examine the possibility of levies on single-use plastics such as straws, stirrers, cups and cutlery, as suggested by the Marine Conservation Society. They also suggest extending the deposit return scheme to include plastic, glass and metal, which I would support, although that may be a personal view. I believe that such actions would truly be a win-win scenario for our environment, both on land and sea, and the Government will have our support tonight for the motion. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Ian Gray. Presiding Officer, we have now been aware for some time of the threat that plastic pollution poses to the environment, the ecosystem and human health. The term single-use plastic, which this debate references, may have an innocuous jargon-like quality to it, but in reality it translates to an estimated 5.5 billion tonnes of discarded plastics, putting our lands, seas and oceans with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation predicting there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050. That is a global challenge that will require global solutions, and I welcome the European Union's commitment that all plastics packaging is to be easily recyclable or reusable by 2030. The Scottish Government is to be commended for matching that pledge with a ban on single-use plastics by the same year. In Scotland, we have already taken positive steps with the introduction of carrier bag charges, the announcement of a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles and the announced ban on plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Ending the use of disposable plastic straws is the next logical step, and I applaud both the work of my colleague Kate Forbes in this area and, in particular, the fantastic ocean defenders at Sunnyside primary, whose next straw or campaign is gathering pace. There have also been many others who have worked hard to raise awareness of plastic pollution. In June of 2017, I was placed to meet with members of Greenpeace outside of the Parliament, including my constituent Rachel, as well as outlining the findings of a recent scientific voyage researching ocean plastics around Scotland's coastlines. Rachel also gave me a small vial of plastic pollutants that were recovered on the expedition. That vial now sits in my office in terms of a potent reminder of not only the impact of plastic pollution that is having on the oceans but of the collective impact that human society is having upon the planet. All the environmental challenges that we face, from global warming and air pollution to the reported commencement of Earth's sixth mass extinction, have been precipitated by human activity. Plastic pollution is only the latest to gain significant public attention. In debates such as we are having today, where we consider the impact that we are having upon the planet and the other species that we share it with, I am, as I am sure we all are, struck with a tremendous sense of guilt at the damage that we have inflicted. However, those debates also provoke a sense of duty and responsibility to repair that damage. That will not be easy. Yes, we must take action where necessary, including legislation if appropriate, but we need to do more. Ultimately, in order to preserve our environment, we will require a fundamental change in culture and a vision of human progress that is not predicated upon never ending an unsustainable growth fuelled by hyper-consumerism. The price of growth cannot be the degrading of the environment that we leave behind. A key pillar of the Scottish Government's economic strategy is inclusive growth. That concept must include considerations of those with absolutely no voices and generations yet to come. The issue of plastic pollution speaks to a far bigger debate about not only how we treat our environment but our responsibilities to future generations. We cannot ignore and escape our fundamental duties as a temporary custodian of this planet. It was perhaps Edmund Burke who put it best when he wrote of society as a partnership, and that, as the end of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society. Our partnership of a living extends to all communities across the globe, and we each have a duty to bequeath to future generations a planet capable of supporting the complex ecosystems of which we are apart. The environmental evidence of those past generations, bound to the earth and parochial in their views, may, if not be forgiven, be understood. However, for this generation, represented in this Parliament, a generation that has long known of the existence of the great garbage heaps floating in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, there is no excuse. Kate Forbes stated that the number of plastic straws used in EU restaurants would stretch to the moon. The next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the moon landings. Of the many enduring images from the Apollo space programme, it is not that of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the lunar surface that has made the biggest impression on me. That is the photo of the earth captured one year earlier by Bill Anders, as the Apollo 8 mission became the first manned spacecraft to complete a lunar orbit. That image is known to us today as Earthrise and has been described as the most influential environmental photo ever taken, ensuring that the earth is an isolated, fragile and lonely world in the vast and empty expanse of space. It forms a sense of collective global responsibility for our environment, more fully than could ever be articulated by words alone. On concluding, let us carry that image with us. Let it inform every decision we take in this place, and in this, the year of young people, let us recommit ourselves to pass on our world to the next generation where plastic pollution and exploitation of the environment are the issues of a bygone age. Mr Arthur, I hope that one day you will learn what form in its 30 seconds means. Iain Gray, followed by Clare Adamson, please. Plastic presents a complex problem for our marine and terrestrial ecosystems, as we have heard, for our economy too and, most importantly, for our environment. It is clear that urgent action is needed. Although it is a global issue, it is, as the cabinet secretary said, very welcome, that the tide now seems to have begun to turn in our attitudes towards plastics here in Scotland, in part due to the BBC programme Blue Planet 2. For this reason, we support the measures that the Government has announced to begin to tackle the issue. For example, we support the banning of plastic cotton buds, especially as the minister came to Gullin in East Lothian to announce that, along with the Gullin beavers, who had written to her demanding action following their own beach clean, the seabird centre in North Berwick in my constituency too may not have the reach of Blue Planet 2, but it has been very active in increasing awareness of the damage done to sea life and to seabirds by plastic waste. Not least, East Lothian-based Fedra, who has also already been mentioned, shows great examples of how awareness around plastics and the associated dangers can be raised and action campaign for Fedra led, as the cabinet secretary said, the great nerdle hunt, an important example of community action to tackle these issues head on. Nerdles are small plastic pellets, billions of which are used each year to manufacture plastic products. Far too many pollute our coast and end up as part of the marine food chain. Scientists are becoming increasingly concerned by the potential toxicity of this background pollutant. Those, indeed, are estimated to be the third largest source of microplastic pollution. The nerdle hunt project encourages volunteers to attend their local beaches and map out the nerdles that they find. As Ms Cunningham mentioned, at Bones in the first and fourth, half a million were collected off a small beach, with many more still left behind. Indeed, in Yellow Craigs, in my constituency, in only five minutes, almost 100 nerdles were discovered in a beach clean there. Some 400 of those hunts have been organised. We commend the actions of volunteer groups taking very practical action to improve the environment for us all. However, the truth is that the burden cannot rest with them, and removing all those pellets from our beaches and seas once they enter the ecosystems is clearly impossible. While raising awareness and changing the behaviour of the public concerning the products that we all use is important, tackling the use of plastics in the supply chains of industry is absolutely key. The majority of nerdles end up on our beaches through spillage and mishandling by industry, and that is entirely avoidable with good practice. Those leaks happen at all points of the supply chain. There are initiatives such as Operation Clean Sweep, an industry scheme devised to reduce the loss of those pellets through implementing systems and sharing best practice. Those are geared towards addressing the problems, but the scheme is voluntary and, in truth, uptake of it remains worryingly low and there are no checks in place. Fidra has suggested that a Government-backed certification scheme, backed by a legislation if necessary, which allows companies throughout the supply chain to check for responsible handling, could help prevent this particular source of plastic pollution. It is an idea more than worthy of consideration as part of the Government's plastic and marine strategies. I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the suggestion and I hope that, in closing, the minister can respond positively to this proposal. Strong words have to be matched by more action if we are to improve our coser economy and our environment. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. You showed Mr Arthur how ought to be done. I call Clare Adamson, followed by Liam McArthur. On Friday last week, I had a visit to my constituency office from a delegation from Glencair in primary P7. Katie Cara, Thomas Reagan and the classmates came to talk about their concerns about possible budget cuts in North Lanarkshire. I was very impressed by their passion for their education, but they went on to tell me about their schools' efforts to ban single-use plastic. The whole school was working to replace disposable drinking cups and plates with reusable ones, and each day, one of the classes provided volunteering for washing up duties. They had managed to ban plastic straws and were in negotiation with the school supplier to replace milk cartons with attached straws with a bulk supply that could be used with reusable drinking cups. I am hoping to visit to find out a bit more about their project and perhaps the cabinet secretary would consider doing the same. I was really struck by the enterprise that endeavoured the empathy and concern for our world, your credit to the teachers' appearance and to Motherwell Town. Of course, the young people were inspired by the focus brought to the issue by other young people across Scotland, spoken about already by Kate Forbes and by Ian Gray, and also by the powerful images in Blue Planet 2. What might be surprising is that there has been some work done to show that, shocking though the images from Blue Planet 2 are, there may be even less plastic in the world that might be expected. There has been some modelling done on this and it was printed in New Scientist in May of 2017. It led scientists to believe that perhaps there might be microorganisms in the ocean yet undetected that are actually degrading plastics. It may also be that the plastic is sinking to the bottom of the ocean, where we cannot detect it and cannot see it, which could be causing problems down the line that we are yet unaware of. It was interesting to think that there might actually be Mother Nature herself in helping us with the problem. We should be thankful once again for the observation and curiosity of the scientific mind. Again, in New Scientist in April 2017, it published the experience of Federica Berticini, who was from the Institute of Biomedicine, biotechnology in Cantabria. She was picking honeycomb moths caterpillars from a beehive, placing them into a plastic bag for disposal. I noticed that her efforts were somewhat in vain as the caterpillars were escaping from the plastic containers. Rather than just dealing with the situation on their own research, she decided to investigate what was actually going on. To be sure that the caterpillars were actually digesting the plastic, her team put some groundwork in them and prepared a thin layer of paste on the polythene film. Within 14 hours, the enzymes from the caterpillars had broken down 13 per cent of the plastic. They were always able to find traces of ethylene glycol, which is a sign of polythene breakdown in the experiment. Berticini said at the time, if that is a case, I can picture a scenario in the future where we can isolate it, produce it on a large scale and use it to biodegrade plastics. While that is really exciting research, she was yet to secure funding to continue her work at the time of publication last year. We are all doing a bit, Mother Nature is doing a bit, the young people from Glencairn primary are doing their bit. However, that is an issue that will involve us all being doing our bit to reduce plastic usage. In my final few moments, I commend some of the work that Dell has done with Haiti in using packaging sourced from the beaches and collections in Haiti, rather than using new-use virgin plastics in their packaging. It is efforts like this throughout the world that will make a difference. I call Liam McArthur. Do we follow up by Ivan McKee? Mr McArthur, please. I am not sure that I can match that. The issue of plastic pollution accelerates up the political agenda. Reflecting a growing public awareness and appetite for action today's debate is, indeed, timely. Like others, I pay tribute to the catalytic effect played by BBC's Blue Planet 2. That is not just a niche aspect of the wider debate on waste and the consequences of a throwaway culture. Plastics, as we have heard, have a huge impact on our environment. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation's prediction that by 2050 we could see more plastic in our seas than fish is arresting, although, more so if you are the MSP for Orkney and already reeling from the findings of the Harriet Watt researchers on the prevalence of microplastics in scapa flow. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's and the Government's commitment to ban single-use plastics by 2030. I also welcome her remarks about having cognisance of the impact on certain individuals or individual groups. As somebody whose brother is a quadriplegic, I am very well aware of the use that is made of plastic straws. Labour and Greens amendment helpfully nudges further in the right direction, but I am struggling a bit with the Tory amendment. Yes, we need to focus on the waste hierarchy, but at present Orkney waste is shipped up to Shetland for incineration. Surely Orkney Islands Council should at least have the scope to assess the feasibility of a local waste-to-energy plant. Moratórium would, I think, make that impossible. That said, I do not really have time, I am sorry. That said, each party quite rightly has offered options for how we deal with the challenges of tackling the harmful use of plastics. The World Democrats recently launched a save our seas campaign, setting out a range of proposals from DRS to global action to tackle the crisis on ocean pollution, a mix that you would expect of the strategic on the one hand through to the very much more targeted and the latter, I think, are important. Small steps cumulatively can make a significant difference. With heightened public interest and appetite, as I said, the scope for securing these sorts of behavioural changes is greater than ever. I, like others, commend Kate Forbes on her efforts in relation to plastic straws, likewise organisations ranging from the Scottish Parliament to ASDA and Northlink. The Marine Conservation Society, too, is leading a wider Stop the Plastic Tide initiative aimed at reducing single-use plastics through levees and pressing fast food and coffee chains to up their game. That offers a rich seam of possibilities. For example, how we reduce the use of disposable cups, unless you picked up in my amendment for today's debate. A recent Liberal Democrat FOI request revealed that 1,200 disposable cups are bought each day by the Scottish Government for use in staff canteens and offices. That is almost half a million a year. I use this only to illustrate an opportunity for ministers to take a lead by changing what they do on a day and daily basis. We have seen the dramatic difference that a levy has made on public attitudes to single-use bags. Why not a similar approach to disposable cups that could increase take-up of reusable cups, cut waste while also raising significant sums for charity? I accept that a panel has been set up to look at the issues, but we need a firm commitment from the cabinet secretary. Finally, I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments in relation to nerddles. She will be aware that it is not just Ian Gray who has a passion for the issues, but my colleague Willie Rennie. The Scottish Government needs to ensure that the responsible practices are put in place across the plastic supply chain, making pellets, transporting pellets and manufacturing new products from those pellets. I think that the point that Ian Gray made in relation to FIDRA's call for a certification scheme to improve transparency as much as anything else is one that I hope that she would take on board and take seriously. It has never been a better opportunity or indeed a greater need to stem the tide of plastic pollution. That is an opportunity that we must seize. Paul Ivan McKee, who is followed by Finlay Carson. Thank you. I would like to start my contribution today with a quote from the 1967 film The Graduate. A young Ben Braddock has given some career advice, one word, plastics, he has told. The business of the future and so it proved to be. The following decades saw an exponential growth of the plastics industry to a point now where plastics are everywhere, including, unfortunately, in our seas, beaches and oceans. There is no greater issue for us to consider in this Parliament than the impact that our actions have today on the environment of tomorrow. We have all been shocked and moved by the powerful visual images of marine plastic pollution on our screens. That is an issue that will impact us but has a far greater impact on the generations that follow. It is therefore fitting that much of the drive to make progress in this area has come from our younger citizens, including the great work that was carried out by Sunnyside primary school in my Glasgow province constituency. I have visited Sunnyside primary school. I have stood next to the nace straw at all wall. I have been extremely impressed by Sunnyside's whole school approach. Every year group has a different focus to their environmental work, ensuring that focus is not lost when one year group moves on. The young people at Sunnyside have a very mature approach to the issue. They understand very well the need to work with rather than against businesses to ensure that transition to a low-plastic environment is achieved with buying from all stakeholders, which is the fastest way to deliver real sustainable progress. They have engaged with local retailers and household names, including Muller, Tetra Pak and McDonald's, and they have had success with CalMac Ferries among others. I was therefore delighted to put Sunnyside in contact with Scotland's manufacturer of reusable nappies, the locally-owned business Totspots, which is also based in my province constituency. Engaging with Totspots will show Sunnyside pupils that their excellent environmental work provides opportunities, as well as challenges for businesses and for employment. My brief comments today, given my prior experience and expertise in the manufacturing sector, I intend to focus on the business and industrial dimensions of this issue. While we can work hard to discourage use and to encourage recycling, the big wins will be the shot of supply and provide alternatives. With that in mind, I encourage the expert panel to take a whole life cycle look at the plastic supply chain to assess the impact on businesses and industries of the move to low-impact products, and then, most importantly, to identify the opportunities for businesses working with academia through innovation centres to step in with innovative environmentally friendly alternatives, products and processes that will not only help to save our planet but will do so in a way that also generates economic and export opportunities, and then for government to work with those businesses to support the transition. In that regard, there is much to learn from the approach of the young people at Sunnyside. I am also aware that the split between reserved and devolved powers in this area is not clear. The use of tax powers are constrained and the use of powers to ban products outright will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Notwithstanding that, I encourage our Government to act where we can, pressure the UK Government where we have to and continue to argue for increased powers where needed. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, let us be no doubt as to the significance of this issue. The future health of our planet and the future generations depends on it. I finish where I begin. Fifty years later, we have come full circle. Know that our present day, Ben Braddock, would be given very different careers advice. Plastics are at least those that pollute our environment and our oceans, an industry that has had its day. The opportunities of the future will be in environmentally sustainable industries, products that are bi-degrade and energy sources that are renewable. Scotland's potential in the renewables energy sector is well known. We should also exploit the move away from disposable plastics to innovate in the implementation of sustainable alternatives. I trust that the cabinet secretary and other relevant ministers across government will lead the way on this issue. Finlay Carson, followed by Graham Dey. Deputy Presiding Officer, shocking images showing a seahorse holding a cotton bud as featured on Blue Planet 2 has alerted us all to the impact of single-use plastics on the environment. It is now clear to everyone that the 8 million tonnes of plastic discarded into the ocean each year poses a significant risk to biodiversity. Nationally and internationally, marine plastic pollution has caused a global biodiversity loss at the rate consistent with a six-mass extinction, injuring well life and harming their habitat. Studies have shown that a staggering 48 per cent of fish samples from coastal waters in Scotland contain plastic in their digestive system. Scotland is also an important region for seabirds, incorporating 60 important birds and biodiversity areas that must be protected from the effects of the devastation. Scotland's coastal landscape is also affected by plastic. The Scottish continental shelf contains the highest proportion of marine litter anywhere in the country. It is therefore clear that action must be taken to protect our lands and seas from the impact of single-use plastics. Legislative solutions and policy initiatives can, where necessary, play an important role in reducing single-use plastics. I welcome action taken by the Scottish Government in banning q-tips and their work alongside the UK Government on the banning of manufacture and sale of products containing microbeads. It is clear that in order to reach a target of zero avoidable plastic waste by 2042, any long-term policy solution introduced should aim to foster a culture change, a transform in attitudes and motivate everyone to think more about the waste that they produce. As we heard in the committee earlier this week, there is the stick the carrot but the tambourine approach where we want people to enjoy doing the right thing. Consumers are already encouraged to use reusable plastic bags. Beverage containers are some of the most common items accumulated on shorelines in the sea surface and sea floor. In Britain there is an estimated 2.5 billion disposable coffee cups used every year, creating around 25,000 tonnes of waste. That is why I have asked the chief executive of the Scottish Parliament to look into banning single-use coffee cups, which are not recyclable, so that we can lead by example in this issue and show that making small behavioural changes can be quite straightforward. While policy undertaking to tackle the impact of single-use plastic must be thorough, it is important that it does not come at the expense of vulnerable groups. I echo the sentiments of the cabinet secretary in the letter that she shared with the convener of the Eclear Committee on the subject of the Scottish Government's current approach to plastics and the deposit return. I welcome the announcement today of the appointment of a disability representative. It is vitally important that we do not disadvantage groups within society in tackling issues around single-use plastic. I concur that the thinking behind any initiative should be grounded in real-world understanding. I therefore encourage that the Scottish Government, when acting to minimise the consumption of plastics, will take into consideration the needs and views of those who, for example, are not able to visit a supermarket on a regular basis and rely on plastic wrap goods to keep their food fresher for longer, or members of the public who need to purchase prepared food and vegetables that often must be transported and stored in plastic packaging. It is crucial that the Scottish Government must incorporate that approach with deposit return schemes, and support should be provided to groups who cannot take part in the scheme in order to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by it. I recognise the importance of tackling the impact of single-use plastic, and the grave consequences in action on the matter will bring to land and sea in Scotland and further afield. Stemming the plastic tide will allow us to better safeguard our environment, keep our sights of natural coastal beauty free from litter, and contribute to an overall improvement in the quality of the marine environment. I therefore support the general aims of the Scottish Government in encouraging behavioural change on the matter, while encouraging it to ensure that all members of society are included in any and all solutions to the problem that is posed by single-use plastics. I call Graeme Dey to be followed by Maurice Corry. As a member of the Racky Committee in the last Parliament and now a convener of the Environment Committee, I have found myself immersed in climate change and environmental matters for approaching seven years now. A common theme through all of the work that has entailed has been the need to encourage and facilitate behavioural change. We have talked often about the balance between the carrot and stick approach. A week or so ago, a Government official appearing before the Environment Committee introduced a third element, the tambourine. Although I was not entirely sure that he meant either, it was explained as wishing, wanting or feeling compelled to do something. To be fair, I believe that we as a society are moving into that territory. Those of us who had a hand in shaping policy in this area have assumed a need to prompt behavioural change and absolutely to facilitate it. We are in a completely new phase now in the battle to preserve our planet, one where the politicians, at least to some extent, are following a direction of travel being set by a willing public. We have come a very long way in a relatively short space of time in terms of changed attitude towards doing a bit for the environment. I predict that behavioural change is about to take a giant leap forward from this point, driven by a public appetite banging their tambourine, if you like. The Blue Planet series has put a huge part of that in that, in terms of marine littering, but there was already movement of food before then, and right at the heart of that was a concern over certain plastics. The stems for cotton buds and plastic straws being the two of the most obvious of those. I welcomed the recent announcement from the Government on cotton buds. Last year, I was at Lunan Bay in my constituency, taking part in a beach queen organised by sufferers against sewage. It was gobsmacking to see the range of plastics to be found on the beach. The number of cotton buds was a particular take-home message for me, a behavioural changing message, given that since that day I have ceased chucking cotton buds down the toilets that the toilets once used. Assuredly, we are one way or another moving towards addressing disposable straws long before the total ban on throw-away plastics by 2030. Although I commend the work done by my colleague Kate Forbes in raising awareness of the need for a ban, we should, as she did, recognise that schoolchildren in the length and breadth of Scotland have been driving the campaign. Let me in closing turn to another plastic-related blight in the environment, cigarette butts. Like many MSPs, I visit a number of primary schools in my constituency. The question and answer sessions are invariably wide-ranging, and it is clear from those discussions that children have a genuine fascination with issues such as climate change and the environment. However, one example that I always give them about the harmful impacts of littering inevitably provokes a surprised response. That is around the cellulose acetate filters that are used in cigarettes, taking up to 12 years to degrade. Across that timeline, those fag butts are leaking toxins that contaminate water, harm, marine and bird life. I quite like the proposal from Ash that we deploy the polluter paste principle here and force tobacco companies to meet the cost of removal, although I guess that we might be racing time given that the UK Government's intention is not to transpose that into UK law post-Brexit. Cigarette butts on an individual basis might not give the appearance of causing significant detrimental environmental impact, but we are told that globally 4.5 trillion of those make their way into the environment annually. That simply cannot continue globally. We need action to tackle that issue. Finally, I welcome the opportunity that today has provided to explore plastic pollution of the environment, but as I said at the outset, this is not a case of politicians setting the agenda here. The public are ahead of us in wanting those issues addressed. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. This is a subject that I feel passionately about. The area that I represent must be one of the hardest hit areas in Scotland when it comes to plastic washing up on our coastline. Whether it be on the sides of the Firth of Clyde, up in the Gailoch or Loch Long, it feels like a ton upon ton of plastic has been deposited on the west of Scotland's coast. The most vivid example that exists in my region and probably Scotland is Arakha. Due to its position atop of Loch Long, it is a litter sink for the sea. Plastics and other people's other rubbish runs with the current up to Arakha, and then when the tide goes back out, it dumps it on the shore. Arakha's case was so special recently that it was included in a plastic tide documentary. Local people are fighting back against the plastic tide alongside brilliant organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society, who are celebrating this year their 25th year in operation of their beach water project. Beach Watch is a UK-wide project that uses volunteers to undertake a national beach cleaning and litter surveying programme. It is helping people all around the UK to care for their coastline and also collect very useful scientific data. It will culminate this year in the Great British Clean, which will be running between 14 and 17 September. I have submitted a motion to be considered for a member's debate on this campaign and I look forward to cross-party support for it. Last year, when a beach clean took place in my west Scotland region, there were six beach clean events at Lundestown Bay, Irvine, Port and Cross beach, Blair Varrach beach, Gelochroos bit and on the Arakha shores. They involved 117 volunteers who between them picked up 8,329 pieces of litter with 4,845 being made of plastic, which is 58 per cent of the total litter collected. We actually have Catherine Gemmell and Calum Duncan from the Marine Conservation Society in Scotland here today for the debate. They will be responsible entirely for organising the Great British Beach Clean in Scotland. I welcome them very heartily here today and it is good to see them here smiling away. I would like to challenge my fellow MSPs to help organise and tend one of the Great British Cleans in September this year. I look forward to taking your names after this debate. Turning to the deposit return scheme, this is something that I feel passionately and very strongly about. My family's business was in the drinks manufacturing industry and as a part of that was the DRS scheme with glass instead of plastic bottles. It was a success and had a lot of buy-in from both customers and distributors in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I believe that by doing it with plastic we would end up with the same buy-in as we had for glass bottles. It is a shame that DRS was abandoned with the move to plastic bottles some time ago, but some countries kept their DRS in place and reaped the rewards subsequently. Looking at the experience of Norway where they kept DRS in place after the move to plastic bottles, it shows what it was possible. A charge of one Norwegian krona is applied to each standard 500 ml bottle, the equivalent of about £10 in the UK and a 2.5 krona deposit, which is equivalent to 25p on larger bottles. A small amount, but in Norway, DRS is claimed to be the most effective in the world, with 98 per cent of bottles being returned for plastic recycling. I believe that the benefits for the oceans and general are enormous, which is demonstrated by the fact that out of all the plastic bottles being washed up on Norway's shores, six out of seven are foreign. I could not find the exact figures, but the vast majority of what washes up on the UK and Scotland shores comes from the UK and Scotland itself. I was lucky enough to meet Shell Olive Madrum last year when he visited this Parliament. He is the CEO and Managing Director of Inferton, a Norwegian corporation that co-ordinates the national deposit return scheme. That meeting convinced me further that we can replicate the success here in Scotland. It is vital, though, that we have a UK-wide scheme to get the maximum benefit from DRS. The UK Government has already announced that it is willing to work with the devolved Administrations in the UK to ensure that we have a UK-wide approach whenever possible for the scheme. In conclusion, I firmly believe that we must do whatever we can to stir up the plastic tide, choking our oceans before it is too late, and with the work of organisations such as Marine Conservation Society Scotland and using inundated schemes such as DRS, we can do just that. Richard Lochhead, followed by Pauline McNeill. I should take up Maurice Corry's challenge and just say that I expect once again to be joining the staff from the Dolphin Centre at Spay Bay for local beach cleaners that I have done for many, many years. I pay tribute to those groups and our constituencies and others throughout Scotland to clean our beaches and to those who have supported this kind of debate. The fact that the debate is taking place in 2018-19, 19 years into devolution, is a sign of the times, the fact that we are having dedicated debates in this Parliament now to single-use plastics. That illustrates the momentum of recent years, with public support, to address the issue. Another sign of change times is Maurice Corry's reference to the fact that any deposit return scheme should be UK-wide because the UK Government is now contemplating such a scheme south of the border. That, of course, is also a change in policy by the Conservative south of the border, because for many years I went to extreme length to try and persuade my UK counterparts in the housing government to get behind a UK-wide deposit return scheme. I hope that we will reach that position very soon. However, there is huge momentum behind the issue at the moment. In terms of introducing the 5P charge for single-use carrier bags or to conduct research into the potential of the deposit return scheme in Scotland, those kinds of policies, just two or three years ago, were often put into the two radical tray, whereas now they are taken for granted as absolutely necessary policies and are in the urgent tray. Things have really moved at a pace over the past few years. A lot of that is down to modern technologies, science and research. When I talk about modern technologies, I am talking about social media, because now we have many campaigns taking place in Scotland, Europe and globally for the likes of plastics to be tackled. The word quickly spreads and, of course, Blue Planet 2, which was on our television screens, played a huge role in raising public awareness about the impact of plastics and human influence on our natural environment. I can remember back in 2002 when WWF said that if people around the world were to consume the world's natural resources at the same rate as UK and US citizens, we would need an extra two planets to survive. Thankfully, more and more people are now aware of the impact that they are having on our natural resources and environment. I also want to pay tribute to the organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace and many others that have played a role in raising awareness about those issues in recent years. I was very privileged to be at the launch event for the Greenpeace ship Beluga 2, which last year went around Scotland's coast for two months, highlighting the impact of plastics on our oceans. Often, those issues are seen as, in other parts of the world, in the Arctic, the Pacific, the Atlantic or wherever, but not necessarily within Scottish six or 12-mile limits. Of course, what the Beluga 2 found out was that single-use plastic bottles have been washed up on beaches of uninhabited islands in Scottish waters. People are now realising that, when we throw away plastic bottles or other items, they are being washed up on beaches far, far away and impacting on our natural environment. Just as Governments legislate against the predation of precious and rare marine species in terms of hook, harpoon or inappropriate economic development or net or whatever, we really have to recognise that we are doing that on the one hand, but on the other hand, we are killing or injuring the marine species by dumping plastics into our oceans and other alien materials. We have to get to the stage where, in our minds, we recognise that we just can't do that. Just as we outlaw other things, we have to outlaw anything that harms the natural environment or move towards at least reducing that impact in the short term, but I do believe that, at one point in the future, those activities will be illegal when society has moved on that bit further. It is good to see lots of private sector businesses just as I close getting behind tackling plastic packaging. That was discussed by the World Economic Forum just a couple of weeks ago. Now, those multinational companies recognise that consumers and people around the world want those big multinationals to act and cut down their plastic packaging and do their bit to save the planet and stop plastics, damaging marine wildlife and our fantastic landscapes. I commend the cabinet secretary for picking up the cudgels and taking this issue forward. I tell her, please, please, regularly, regularly, it's the best way forward. David Attenborough's Blue Planet series, mentioned by just about every member so far, may in time prove to be one of the most significant catalysts for behavioural change among the ordinary public in terms of recycling, possibly even eclipsing the awareness raising done by environmental organisations. The Blue Planet series took more than four years, 125 expeditions, across 39 countries to film. As we've heard, this touched the lives of many people who had previously not given the slightest consideration to our oceans. It was six-year-old Harrison Forsyth who wrote to Aldi's after he saw the series to ask him to stop using plastic bags, but one of the many reactions has been seen by people now who want to protect our oceans. Finlay Carson talked about the image of the seahorse with the cotton bud. For me, it was the film of the mother whale carrying about her dead baby calf because it died of polluted milk that has stayed with me and upset me. However, the vibrant colour and the breathtaking life forms draw you into a series with sights that you would not have imagined. The episode The Deep Overdeglints into an environment that we seem to know less about than the surface of Mars, but once you were drawn into the series and captivated by it, the later episodes hit you with the disturbing facts that these beautiful creatures fighting for their survival due to climate change and worse, as we've heard the amount of plastic thrown into the sea that's poisoning our marine life. David Attenborough himself said, unless the flow of plastics into the world's oceans are reduced, marine life will be poisoned by them for centuries to come. It is the equivalent of a rubbish truck of plastic being dumped into the world's oceans every year, ingested by seabirds, fish and other organisms. I am one of the many millions of people who I have believed have been shocked into action by the Blue Planet series. For Blue Planet, I have to be honest and say that this debate might have passed me by, but it will pass me by no longer. I believe that the subject should be centre stage of this parliamentary term. I would like to pay credit to the command of the breather, Roseanna Cunningham, and the work that she's done in this, but also to Claudia Beamish, who has had a lifetime of involvement. I have turned my life around, I have to say. I am now the chief recycler in my household, and I have to say that it is all down to being shocked by the Blue Planet series and what I've heard. The chief of the United Nations Oceans, the United Nations Oceans Police, said last year that it is a planetary crisis and that we are ruining the ecosystems of the ocean, and it seems that she is right. Others have talked about what the effects might be on humans eating fish containing plastics, and still that is largely unknown, but you can add it, I guess, at that. However, the public should at least be aware that a recent survey by Plymouth University found that plastic was found in a third of the UK fish caught, including Haddock and so on. Scientists in Belgium recently calculated that people who eat seafood ingest up to 11,000 tiny pieces of plastic every year. As we've heard all the everyday products, we think that we can't live without. We may just have to live without some of them if we want to change, but it will take the collective efforts, behavioural change, education, collaboration, regulation and legislation to reverse the damage that is done to our world. Politicians have a duty to set an example. If people understand why they are being asked to change their behaviour, if they know why they are doing it, it's for the greater good, I'm sure that we can do great things. The last of the open debate contributions is from Kenneth Gibson. Presiding Officer, nothing better illustrates our throwaway lifestyle in plastic, the production use and disposal of which has a serious environmental and health problem. Globally, we use 160,000 plastic bags every second, and components of this man-made material can take centuries to degrade. Items designed to last may be used only once before being thrown away. Vast quantities of plastic debris and particles pollute our planet with millions of tonnes dumped in our seas each year. Suddenly, gradually degrades plastic into tiny microplastics. Wedelodyspers and water attract other toxins, passing up the food chain to eventually contaminate entire ecosystems. Sea creates us from the most microscopic swallow toxic chemicals from plastic decomposition. People eat fish that have eaten other marine organisms, which in turn had eaten toxins saturated plastics. In essence, we are eating our own plastic waste. Plastic pollution inspired environmental scientists Lucy Gilliam and Skipper Emily Penn to launch X Expedition, a unique series of all-female sailing voyages striving to make the unseen scene from the toxins in our bodies to the plastics in our seas. The X Expedition docked to Narnan in my constituency last summer during their month-long voyage around Britain. They also called at Leithan on 25 August. I hosted an event here in Holyrood, attended by 70 folk. This is before Blue Planet 2 raised the consciences of millions to the impact of plastics in our seas. The X Expedition examined the plastics, chemicals, endocrine disruptors and carcinogens in our marine environment, linking them to the ecosystem and products that we consume while considering the long-term health impacts on future generations. Everyone alive today carries with them a body of at least 700 contaminants and 29 of the 35 most toxic chemicals on plastics are present in human tissue. Have you organised and participated in numerous litter picks and beach cleans? I see how much plastic washes up on our shores. Single-use plastics such as bottles, straws, spoons and cups contribute most to the problem, and while a plastic-free society is unlikely, switching to reusable alternatives allows us to be part of the solution rather than part of the pollution. Packaging should be dramatically reduced, and if people who work here took a proper lunch break, they wouldn't use any of the polystyrene packs, but they would take their lunch back to their offices. We can also reduce single-use plastic personal care and hygiene products such as liquid soap, shower gel, shampoo and conditioner, which often comes in wee plastic bottles. It takes a litre of fossil fuel and 22 litres of water to produce a 1 litre plastic bottle, emitting 550 grams of greenhouse gases in the process, and the US alone 17 million bottles of oil are used annually to produce plastic water bottles. Microbeads are solid plastic particles of less than one millimetre. Abandoned with the manufacture and sale of microbeads and rinse of cosmetics and personal care comes into effect this year, and having raised this issue numerous times over the years, I'm particularly pleased by this. Around half of plastic bottles are currently recycled, representing an important step towards society in which resources are valued and nothing wasted. A plastic bottle deposit scheme will surely help further. Presiding Officer, whilst Parliament is resolutely opposed to disposal plastic in life, solutions are not always simple. The plastic bag charge has been remarkably successful in cutting the colossal number of bags sent to landfill. However, a study in 2005 by the previous Lib Labes Scottish Executive stated that a paper bag has more adverse impact than a plastic bag for most of the issues considered, whilst the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2011 concluded that a cotton shopping bag needs to be used 173 times before being responsible for fewer carbon emissions in a plastic bag, cutting being a very water-intensive crop, requiring lots of fertiliser and oil to fuel the machinery required for cultivation, while the run-off is very damaging. Polyactic acid or PLA is biodegradable and bioactive thermoplastic aliphatic polyester derived from renewable resources such as sugarcane, cornstarch, cassava roots or wood chips is a possible alternative but requires vast areas of land. Europe uses 60,000 tonnes of plastic a year, so switching to PLA would utilise 100,000 square kilometres of arable land, nail a tenth of all land under cultivation across Europe. Biodegradable plastic decomposes straight to methane, a greenhouse gaffer with 20 times the potency of CO2. Ultimately, rather than alternatives, we must have more effectively husband Earth's precious natural resources re-using and recycle, as the cabinet secretary said in her opening statement. A totally single-use plastic-free Scotland is a long-term goal, which will take time to achieve. Have a plastic pollution is an entirely man-made problem, and the solutions to must be of our own conception. We now move to closing speeches, and I call Mark Ruskell, six minutes please, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that we've had an interesting, very wide-ranging debate here this afternoon. The cabinet secretary started off with a very long list of plastic pollution, from wet wipes to bottle caps to cotton buds. Claudia Beamish added crisp bags, Kate Forbes added enough straws to get us to the moon and back, but thankfully not via Waitrose, which is welcome. Liam McArthur added half a million coffee cups in Scottish Government canteens, Graham Day added some fag butts and John Scott was concerned about the microfibers possibly lurking in his body. We've also had a number of contributions about the importance of community action, and members highlighting the excellent work that's taking place in their constituency. Sunnyside primary school has been mentioned the excellent work in Ulipill as well to ban plastic straws. We've heard about Lunan Bay, Arica and Spey Bay, the beach cleans, and the important community action that's been taking place now for many years in many communities across Scotland. Those are hugely important. They're perhaps not important in terms of removing sheer volumes of plastic pollution from our coasts and our seas, but they are incredibly important in terms of helping us to understand the scale of the problem that we have of plastic pollution and in driving the behaviour change and the education that we need. In that light, I'd like to commend Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage and schools and communities across Scotland who've been doing this work. Certainly in my own region, in Fife, we're taking part in beach cleans at Kinghorn Bay, and this is a community that really gets their local environment. They really care about their local environment, and it comes back to what Tom Arthur was saying about the partnership that's needed between generations. You see that very much on the ground in these communities, and sadly one individual, Mary, who is no longer with us, who did some fantastic work 10 years ago on the campaign against ship to ship, all transfers. You can see that baton being passed from one generation to another. Their work is absolutely vital in helping us to understand the impact of plastic pollution. Ian Gray raised the issue of nerddles, and again I'd like to congratulate Fidra on their excellent work in this area. The call for a certification scheme to address where the nerddles are getting lost in supply chain is hugely important, but that leads me on to another issue around supply chains, which perhaps we haven't debated yet in this debate this afternoon. That's around recycling and around where our low-grade plastic waste recycling ends up. We had the news, of course, in the new year that China intends to ban the low-grade plastic imports that we've effectively been dumping to be reprocessed. There have been some investigations about some of the traceability issues that we have in the supply chain for plastics. Our plastic waste is meant to be certified. It's meant to be exported through something called a packaging export recovery note, but investigations have found that some of the waste has ended up in Asia being stockpiled, land-filled or even burned. It's important to maintain the confidence in the public of recycling that we make sure that the plastic waste is traceable and is auditable. If it's going to be recycled, it has to be recycled. I'd like to ask the Cabinet Secretary in closing perhaps to reflect on what we can do at Scottish Government level to ensure that traceability. As soon as a Chinese plastic ban came out, I asked the Scottish Government what the implications will be. The answer that I got back is that the Government doesn't know yet, but I would like to know when the Government will know, because local authorities around Scotland have spent millions of pounds reconfiguring their waste collection systems, often to increase the collection of mixed lower-grade plastic recyclet. It would be useful to know exactly what the future holds for that. Turning to deposit return, I congratulate the Government for making substantial progress in this area. Richard Lochhead, Maurice Corry raised DRS schemes and hopefully the prospect of a UK-wide scheme. I noted the Cabinet Secretary's comments about moving beyond plastic with DRS potentially to cans and glass bottles. I would like to perhaps say a little bit more about that in closing. I think that that's a really exciting initiative if we can actually take the DRS concept and start applying that to bottles that we used to take for granted as being able to be reused. I also take on the points that a number of members have made about the importance of equalities that are proving that push. I go back to my initial point about the importance of a plastic hierarchy in recognising that we need to use plastics, possibly single-use plastics in some cases, but the regular wasteful use of plastic that we are involved in as society at the moment is clearly inappropriate. In closing, I would like to briefly mention incineration. Maurice Golden is perhaps not the best debate to be raising that, but I share the concerns that he has raised. We are seeing speculative applications for waste incinerators appearing across Scotland, including in Westfield and Fife in my region. Those are slipping through the planning system. I raised the question with the energy minister when we had the energy statement in December. I was promised a meeting with Mr Wheelhouse and Roseanna Cunningham. That has not happened yet. We need to get a grip on the issue, particularly given that we have the national planning framework coming this year. In conclusions, I wish the Government well—I wish the summit well in open later on this year. I hope that that summit will address the issue of microfibers that was raised in the green motion. As the cabinet secretary and many others have said in this debate following the final episode of the recent documentary series Blue Planet, the spotlight has been placed on the scale of destruction that is being caused by the excessive use of plastics right across the world. All of us who watched the programme could not help but be shocked by scenes showing the tragic impact that waste is having on marine life. Although the problem caused by plastic pollution has been known about for some time, public mood and the desire to change things for the better mean that there is now an energy across all ages and groups and all sectors of society that will help to drive the change that we need. A point that was well made by Graham Day, Claudia Beamish, Kenneth Gibson and others. Indeed, today in this Parliament there has been many good speeches highlighting what has been done across Scotland and what needs to be done. As Tom Arthur and other contributions mentioned, the report prepared by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for the recent World Economic Forum at Davos, which incredibly stated that, by 2050, the amount of plastic in the ocean will outweigh fish. It is just incredible that the human race would do that. As Pope Francis said, what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us? He went on to say, May the relationships between man and nature not be driven by greed to manipulate and exploit, but may the divine harmony between beings and creation be conserved in the logic of respect and care? Friends of the Earth Scotland strike a similar note when they say that the increase in single-use plastics has coincided with the development of a damaging mindset to take, make, dispose and a culture of hyper-consumerism. As others have said here today, plastic has been around for a long time but it now dominates our lives in clothing, cooking, engineering and product design. The rate at which we are producing plastic has accelerated and the report in Science magazine in July 2017 estimated that 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic has been produced today. Of this, some 80 per cent, 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic is now wasted within society. Speaker after speaker has said today and made the point that we cannot continue like that, we cannot simply ignore this issue, we will all have to take responsibility and do something. It is clear that the problem on such a scale and complexity will not lend itself to a quick fix. We will need global co-operation and indeed global action to achieve the lasting change that we desire, but there is also action that can be taken much closer to home by individuals, communities, local authorities and Governments. I am pleased today that today's motion from the Scottish Government recognises the need to take action on a number of fronts and to see Labour's amendment that recognises that public involvement, volunteer action and a rethink on how we as a country use resources all have a part to play. Individual behaviours will play a big part in reducing the impact of single-use plastics. There are currently around 480 billion plastic bottles sold across the globe every year. That is 20,000 per second, so anything that we can do to reduce that figure will make a difference. Simple but effective action, like the introduction of the refill scheme, where shops and offices can permit the public to come in and refill their water bottles, will have an effect. I know that some MSPs have signed up to this already, but we also need to find ways to provide drinking water in public areas. For example, the example that was set by London's mayor Sadiq Khan, a step back to drinking ffountains that used to be found in many towns, villages and parks. Indeed, a report from Seas that RIS points out that Copenhagen and Denmark has recently installed 60 drinking ffountains across the city, just one of many examples that they give of local leadership taking action. As Kate Forbes highlighted, the example of Illipool, the first village in the UK to ban plastic straws, a campaign driven by local school children, and in Fife, my home county, the chief executive of the council told me this morning that they are in the process of working a plan to ban plastic straws. The Scottish Government's charge for plastic bags is working a treat. I also welcome the great work done by local communities such as Kinghorn, as was mentioned by Mark Ruskell, Carnock and other voluntary organisations in the clean-ups. We must recognise the challenge facing local authorities as they seek to manage their waste as well. The public can, to a degree, choose whether to use items such as plastic bottles, plastic straws, wet wipes, cotton buds and plastic cutlery, and, with the right support, we can choose and use alternatives. As individuals, we have less choice over materials used in everyday consumer goods such as supermarket fruit and vegetable, disposable nappies and, yes, even tea bags. The plastic contained in each of those can take hundreds of years to buy or degrade. Therefore, in conclusion, as I run out of time, let us ensure that the new energy to tackle plastics is not just a reaction but the start of sustainable action. I am delighted to be able to close this debate for the Scottish Conservatives today. I note that there have been several constructive suggestions raised by members from across the chamber, and it is indeed refreshing to be able to unite, generally, as the Parliament is on something so serious. I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague in the Highlands and Islands, Kate Forbes, on her sterling work in leading the fight to eliminate plastic straws, a campaign that we support wholeheartedly. I know that she is an influential woman with friends in high places, but, as I read the Sunday Mail front page this week, announcing that even Her Majesty the Queen has heeded her call to ban plastic straws from palaces and residences across the country, I am in awe at Kate Forbes and her powers of persuasion. Indeed, I would like to thank all of the community group, schools, charities and businesses across Scotland who have responded so positively to this campaign and wider calls to eliminate the use of plastics where possible. It is obviously a positive starting point for the bigger debate. It is encouraging that the UK Government has delivered a clear 25-year plan to eliminate avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042. That plan includes an ambition to have zero avoidable waste by 2050, meeting all existing waste targets, including those on landfill, reuse and recycling, and seeking to eliminate waste crime and illegal waste sites over the lifetime. I am encouraged also by the UK Government's action to see what overseas projects it can invest some of our £13 billion overseas budget into in order to prevent the devastation of marine life. That is something that WWF Scotland has specifically argued for, and I am glad that steps are being taken in that direction. I have noted the Scottish Government's backing of the 2030 single-use plastics plan. We are yet to see a clear strategy on how that will be delivered, but I wait in good faith for that to occur. One observation that I would offer is that having excellent individual ad hoc campaigns such as Nace Draw at All or Have You Got the Bottle is one thing, but there must also be a degree of co-ordination so that an holistic all-encompassing approach is undertaken. To be fair to the cabinet secretary, she did reference co-ordination in her opening remarks, which takes me to our amendment to what might be termed the moristorium. We on these benches support the Government motion, but, as my colleagues have noted, we want it to go further. At the end of the day, while dealing with plastic pollution, it is a step in the right direction. We must be wary of treating it as the be-all and end-all to reducing waste and promoting a more circular economy. As our amendment states, we want Parliament to support a moratorium on any new incineration facilities—I am sorry, I do not have time, I am afraid. As Maurice Golden said, there has been a 12-fold increase in incineration, and it is appropriate to put a marker down about incineration and reduce the need to burn what has been used. I welcome the sympathy that is expressed by Mark Ruskell among others that incineration is unacceptable for plastic. That is why the promotion and uptake of recycling is important. That is why the need to innovate is vital and the need to identify new ways in which plastic can be reused. Ivan McKee spoke very powerfully about alternatives that could be explored. Only a few weeks ago, I think that many members attended an event here in Parliament with a Dumfriesia-based firm Macriber, who takes waste plastic and, in particular, non-reusable plastics and turns them into new roads. As many across this chamber have noticed, the introduction of deposit return scheme is integral to this debate. I know that my colleagues Maurice Golden have done a lot of work on that as convener of the Eclair subgroup last year, and Maurice Corry has also been a vocal campaigner. Given the overarching nature of this debate and the time available, I do not intend to go into the arguments around DRS, but it is important to note how it will impact our ability to collect, recycle and reuse plastics. In addition to that, we must face up to the reality that recycling uptake is lagging, with the rate of recycling only increasing by 1 per cent from 2015 to 2016 and less than half of household waste being recycled. If current trends continue, we will not meet the 70 per cent recycling target by 2025, and that would be extremely disappointing. The fact that non-degradable plastic accounts for 73 per cent of litter in any aquatic environment and that more than 170 marine species have been recorded to ingest human-made polymers can cause life-threatening complications such as gut perforation, reduced food intake, affecting cells and tissues are simply unacceptable. It is not just a problem for the many species that roam our land, skies and waters, but it is a problem for the economy too, as others have said. Marine plastics cost the Scottish fishing industry anywhere between £10.3 million and £11.5 million a year, with the average fishing vessel spending between £15,000 and £17,000 every year in costs of repairs and direct loss of earnings. As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, that is a particular concern to me. According to ZeroWay, Scotland local councils needlessly lose around £54 million a year in landfill tax due to the fact that 60 per cent of items in landfill could have been recycled. In conclusion, in order to tackle the many challenges that are facing our environment, we must all work together to ensure that the many noble words that are shared here today are put into action. Tackling single use and unnecessary plastics is just one part of a much greater objective to ensure that our environment is protected and that future generations can benefit from a cleaner and greener planet. I welcome those who are not the usual suspects to this environment portfolio debate. It is good to see the wider interest, and that obviously is reflecting the wider concern in society. No doubt it is because our natural environment is being threatened by casual attitudes towards resources, so we must learn to rethink our relationship with plastics. That is challenging, and it is not always straightforward. I want to put on record that I am grateful to Fiona Robertson from Aberdeen, who entered the Twitter debate about cauliflower steaks, with a gentle reminder that not everyone finds peeling, chopping or slicing easy or even possible. Her intervention is directly responsible for the decision to have a disability adviser in this issue. We have to move from a throwaway society to one that takes much greater responsibility for how we use, dispose of and recycle to drive the greatest value from this planet's finite resources. We can encourage businesses to innovate through the design of their products and services, supporting their customers to make reuse an easy choice or helping them to recycle more. We can lead by example, and Liam McArthur challenged the Scottish Government itself quite rightly. I can reassure him that the permanent secretary is very much on this case. There is a timeline of action that is currently being worked through, but we can set an example as individuals too. I commend the refail app mentioned by Alec Rowley to colleagues. They can register their constituency offices as water refill stations and help to encourage folk to do just that. It is free. It is easy to do. For obvious reasons, that means that we support the move by Network Rail to introduce public water refill points. We are exploring with Scottish Water options for the introduction of public water refill points in private and public buildings and spaces. There is a great deal of work being done out there. Members need to be confident that that is happening. It makes good business sense to listen to what your customers want. I hear the message that people want clean environments loud and clear. Parliamentary debates over the years have also agreed on the need for change, so let us now agree evidence-based actions to tackle the problem. I cannot possibly summarise all of the contributions. Suffice to say that my guess is that I was not the only one scrutinising their own plastic usage, and that initial view of mine turned out to be rather prescient. I am happy to say that I can accept the Labour and Green amendments. Claudia Beamish has lodged an amendment that focuses on a number of issues. It is well said about issues to do with education, particularly in educating the next generation of designers—which, of course, is a whole debate probably in itself—and action to help companies to develop alternative materials to single use plastics. Those are really important parts of the whole debate. The Green amendment focused very much on microfibers—I am a little distressed by the somewhat Americanised spelling—but I will nevertheless agree to that amendment. Despite that, we recognise that this is a major problem. We monitor its presence in the water column and in subtitle marine sediments. We are also conducting research into plastics as a vector for toxic contaminants in the ecosystem. Some work is already being done around it, but we all agree that it is a major challenge. It exists where we do not realise that it exists, and that is one of the huge issues around it. I cannot, however, accept the Conservative management. First of all, of total waste in Scotland, about 1 per cent is incinerated. It is a bit unhelpful to have tried to shoehorn a debate about incineration into this debate about marine plastics. For example, it is not clear if incinerators requiring upgrading to make them more energy efficient and less polluting would be captured by such a moratorium. It is also unclear what effects such a decision might have on planning applications already going through the appropriate local process. Will we be running the risk of multiple judicial reviews? Can I just gently say to Maurice Golden and his colleagues that I am advised by my friend on the right here that it is Conservative councillors in Aberdeen who are pushing very hard to build an energy from waste plant? There perhaps needs to be a conversation within the Conservative party before they bring an amendment like that to the chamber. Today, it should be about celebrating all that communities in particular are doing to address marine plastics, as well as setting out our stall collectively on what else Government and Parliament might take on board on this issue. I have heard a lot of new ideas this afternoon, and every single idea will be treated seriously. I will consider further legislation where there is compelling evidence that it is the right thing to do to achieve change. My mind is open to further ideas, and I think that Mark Ruskell's hierarchy of priorities was a helpful intervention. We will continue working in partnership with business, local government, charities and others where it supports the outcomes. The summit that I intend to hold later this year will bring together wide interests to explore what else can be done across boundaries to achieve the change that we need and create a better environment for the current and future generations. I have also signalled our willingness to work with the other parts of the UK on deposit return. We want to work with partners worldwide to develop and implement best practice measures to address marine litter and responsible use of plastics. Maurice Corry called for us to work with the UK Government, but that needs both sides to be engaged in that. My officials have not yet been able to get confirmation of what the UK Government commitment on deposit return will be. We understand that, so far, no decision has been taken. It is a little difficult to work in an environment when there is no decision being taken on the other side. I reiterate the commitment that, from our perspective, we do not want to make it just about plastic bottles, but we do want to make it about cans and glass. We want to be as ambitious as we possibly can be. We have recognised the need for funding to address issues such as litter sinks within our current programme for government and will strive to help affected communities. I welcome the enthusiasm and energy of those who have highlighted specific items and called for action on them. I want to approach the issue in a strategic fashion that avoids any unintended consequences for society and the environment. The 2030 vision for ending the single-use plastics in our society gives us that focus to begin to look at the strategy for achieving that vision. Work is being done at the moment to implement a code of conduct for the Scottish plastics industry for the safe handling, packaging and transportation by the CEO of plastic pellets or nerddles. We continue to encourage some of the voluntary work that can be done. There is a message that good handling practice can easily reduce pellet loss, but there are legislative and regulatory challenges that exist in seeking to ban certain materials. Voluntary initiatives may succeed, but we will explore if and how legislation could be developed to address the issue. The Government believes that the case has been made for deposit return. We want an ambitious system, as I have already indicated. We are consulting on it this year, so concrete action is being taken and being moved forward. Any solution to the cumulative damage that plastics are doing to our environment and economy involves us all. I will work with anyone to support the appetite for change. The success of the carrier bag charge, as mentioned by a number of people, shows us what can be achieved through small, simple actions. We have a long way to go. Members today have been able to reference the huge difference that is already being made. Media coverage in recent months has thrown into sharp focus the fragile beauty of our environment. However, it has also captured the imagination of audiences that we now need to mobilise. That is a moment in time that we need to be able to act on quickly. The Scottish Government will encourage and, indeed, legislate to address the problem, but we also need to inspire individual and society change. That means leading from the front in our own lives. That means setting an example of the society that we want to be for the environment that we want to protect. I am absolutely certain that there is not a single person in the chamber that does not feel as strongly about it as I do, or does not feel any less strongly about it as I do. I hope that I will come to an end at about the time that you need me to, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary and all the members for keeping to time this afternoon. That ends our debate on stemming the plastic tide. The next item of business is consideration of two business motions, motion 10351, setting out a business timetable in motion 10352, on a stage 2 timetable. I would ask any member who objects to say so now. I invite Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motions. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one objects. Therefore, the question is that motions 10351 and 10352 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau to move motions 10353 to 10355 in approval of SSIs, motion 10356 on suspension and variation of standing orders, and motion 10357 on designation of a lead committee. Move together. Thank you very much. I will turn now to decision time. The first question this evening is that amendment 10307.1 in the name of Morris Golden, who seeks to amend motion 10307 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on stemming the plastic tide be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10307.1 in the name of Morris Golden is yes, 34, no, 62. There were 26 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 10307.4, in the name of Claudia Beamish, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of the minister for Roseanna Cunningham, is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 10307.2, in the name of Mark Ruskell, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Roseanna Cunningham be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 10307, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, as amended on stemming the plastic tide, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I propose asking a single question on the five parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? Please say so now. No one objects. The question is that motions 10353 to 10357 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, the name of Liam Kerr, on the work of veteran charities in Scotland. And we'll just take a few moments for members and the minister to take their seats. Yes.