19/04/2016 Scotland 2016

Tonight, in the latest of our special election debates, we are

discussing energy and the environment. There is lots to talk

about, from fuel bills to securing Scotland's future energy supply. Our

studio audience have plenty of questions. Representing the Liberal

Democrats Alex Paul Hamilton. Fergus Ewing is here for the SNP. For the

Conservatives, Alex Johnstone. And Labour, Sarah Boyack.

Hallow, and welcome. Let's get straight into it with our first

question, from Jack Brough. What would you like to ask? What are each

party doing to make energy more affordable for families? More than a

third of households spend 10% of income on household fuel, which is

the definition of fuel poverty. What would the Liberal Democrats do to

make energy prices more affordable? It is an excellent question. We look

at social housing stock and 30% of those homes are below standard in

terms of energy standards. That is an outrage. It leads directly to

fuel poverty. The Liberal Democrats will introduce a warm homes act,

which will see a massive national infrastructure programme rolled out

with catch up signs directed at those areas which are hardest hit by

fuel poverty in the first instance. Secondly, and equally importantly,

we will ensure these homes have access to things like heating,

renewable technology, and the latest standards of installation. We will

build 50,000 new homes to address Scotland's crisis and all of these

will be fitted out with the highest speculation and micro-Mouinho balls

to bring down bills and generate electricity to feed into the grid.

-- micro-renewables. The Government has said people will not be living

in fuel poverty by the end of November. Fuel poverty is the

scourge of our society. What we have done and what we hope to do, let me

say. We have done is carried out 900,000 measures to improve the

energy efficiency of homes, such as new boilers or cavity wall

insulation. That is a third of all the houses. We want to do more than

that. Next year, there will be ?104 million invested in energy

efficiency measures affecting 14,000 homes. We need to look at the wider

electricity and heat costs and provide an overall system that does

not discriminate against those who have least. That means providing

proper tariffs but also making the market such that we are not at the

stage where we have a zero margin. There is no real margin between peak

supply and peak demand in the UK and that makes for higher prices than

there should be. A proper margin should be around 20%. That is a

failure of the wider policy in relation to electricity and energy,

which is a matter reserved to the UK Government. If they third of

households in Scotland are in fuel poverty, it is really not achievable

by November that you will eradicate it. A manifesto will be announced

tomorrow which will have a variety of measures. 900,000 measures are a

lot. They have made a real difference to people's lives. There

is a lot more to be done, particularly in the islands and

rural Scotland where the level of fuel poverty is the worst of all.

One way to do that is to connect the islands to the National Grid. They

are not connected at the moment. According to a report by this could

unleash enormous economic benefits which could be used, taking money

from their wind to tackle the fuel poverty caused by the fierce cold of

the wind. Alex Johnson, it is reserved. Why isn't the Conservative

government doing more to bring the big six energy companies to book?

The real problem in Scotland is fuel poverty is not dropping because of

poor energy efficiency in Scotland's homes, particularly with stock that

is already built. If it is to be affordable, gas prices have fallen

by 40% electricity prices by 30%. This has not been passed on to

consumers. This needs to be done. The most important thing we can do

in Scotland is to ensure consumers need less energy to heat our homes.

That is why the Conservatives will ensure that ?1 billion of additional

capital is made available to improve the energy efficiency of Scottish

housing stock. That is a huge amount of money. It will be difficult to

get it out of the door. Our plan is to ensure that that begins on day

one and build over the five years so we can finish the five years of the

next Parliament with ?1 million a day being spent on improving energy

efficiency in Scotland's homes. I would like to ask Sarah Boyack, what

with Scottish Labour do to make energy more affordable? It is about

generating more affordable energy and heat generated in communities.

We want a warm homes act to enable us to get going on heating projects.

We need clear leadership, we need a Scottish Government committed to

making this happen. You need to make sure we tackle the challenge of

poverty. Too many people are having to choose between heating and

eating. That is unacceptable in the 20th century. Also energy efficiency

to bring up the standards of existing stock and acting on

poverty. That all needs to come together. We can bring in these

acts, it is just chipping away. You put in loft insulation and to wall

cavity, backdrops by 5%. It is chipping away at the problem. We

need to be more dynamic and accept the future is nuclear. For every

nuclear reactor that is not built, that is 5200 windmills we need to

carpet Scotland with. Is that what we want? We will come onto that

later in the debate. A lot of people are in poverty because they are not

on the gas grid. You work in the industry? I do. Everyone wants to

heat homes with gas because it is cheaper than electricity. People in

fuel poverty have to pay so much more to heat their homes with

electricity. The man at the back. Often we engage with customers who

do live in energy efficient homes. They have to ration energy because

they cannot afford to meet the energy costs. A simpler tariffs, a

simpler way to pay, a cheaper way to pay is probably moving forward. The

gentleman on the far side. It was mentioned the Western Isles is

struggling with the grid and getting renewables and how developing

renewables could be used to tackle fuel poverty. The vast majority of

renewable energy projects are developed by large commercial

companies, often owned by foreign investors. Only a fraction is

developed by communities and people living in the local area, like

farmers. I would like to know from the panel what they will do to

support more community and locally developed energy projects. We have

already achieved the target set in the last election of achieving unity

renewable schemes to 500 megawatts. I can say that tonight that we will

be setting a target of one gigawatt by 2020 of community schemes. We

will also be setting a target that half of all the newly consented

schemes will have to have a community ownership proponent. There

is a fair measure of support across the parties for this. We are setting

ambitious targets and we want to do more. We already have achieved a lot

in community ownership. There is much further to go. It is not made

easier by the fact we have seen the abrupt cessation for support for

renewables from the London government, which defies reason and

is having a very worrying impact on many communities, who planned for

years to deliver their schemes to be able to deliver it under the system

is set by Westminster. APPLAUSE

We are going to move on to renewables in the debate later but

before that I would like to know what Jack thinks of the answers he

has heard so far. I do not see how in this country we can still have

people who cannot heat their homes. We have got all these gas reserves

in the North Sea and we still have a lot of people in this country that

are going to bed cold at night. It is a disgrace. Thank you. Now, our

second question comes from Matthew Munch who is doing a Ph.D. In

climate change politics. It is not true we have a lot of oil and gas in

this country. The problem is not the oil and gas reserves, it is the

atmospheric capacity to hold those emissions. What will you do to

tackle the fossil fuel industry? Are you planning to keep it alive at any

cost? Alex Cole Hamilton. It is certain that oil will run out in the

foreseeable future in Scotland. That is the end of the industry. I do not

think we should arbitrarily bring that about any faster. Many jobs

depend on oil and gas. The wider question about emissions, this is

something where political rhetoric has not been matched by action.

Nicola Sturgeon went to the Paris talks last year and said that all of

that rhetoric had to be backed up by meaningful action. Four days later,

the finance secretary took ?500 million out of the climate change

but it is part of the spending measures he had taken. That is not

the political reality we need. In terms of the substance of your

question, we need to protect the oil and gas industry which is in crisis.

It is leading to a social catastrophe in that part of the

world. It is part of a greater mix of energy resources we need to

deploy in this country. We are told the North Sea and the UK continental

shelf still has a life span of 40, 50 years. Should be exploited? Yes,

it should. It has to be recognised it is important to provide cheap

energy to avoid the fuel poverty we were talking about. What about

climate change? We have to understand this will be worked on

overtime. Stopping burning coal, as we have done in Scotland, to

generate electricity, and replacing that with gas is a significant,

interim change in getting higher performance from the carbon we put

into the atmosphere. Changing to gas is vital. That is why I believe it

is vital that we take every opportunity to extend the capacity

to produce gas within Scotland, not just in the North Sea, because half

of the gas in the North Sea is Norwegian gas and we have to pay a

market rate for it, but also to exploit the gas which is under our

feet in Scotland. Gentleman at the back.

The representative Conservative Party has said it is something we

have got to deal with overtime, we don't have time. 50 years sounds

like a lot but with a growing population and growing need for

energy it won't last that long. Once it is gone, it's gone. We need to

start working on ways to build up other sections of the economy so we

don't rely on something that doesn't have that one left.

don't rely on something that doesn't now to a low carbon economy. I would

have liked to have seen the Scottish Government

record to heat their homes in Scotland. But because of climate

change, in 15 years we will have to heat our homes in another way. I

have been in a few houses heated by electricity, it is not great. How

about we are going to build houses that are warm with gas now but not

gas in the future. Will you try to keep the industry alive at any cost

to the environment? The people in the oil and gas industry deserve our

support. Oil and gas will help us develop renewables. A Norwegian oil

company came to Scotland and they are now developing the world's

largest floating offshore wind farm. It can be deployed anywhere to get

the best wind conditions. They are also doing an experiment with a

lithium battery to store the energy from the wind, the electricity

generated from wind energy. That is an example of crossover of skills.

There's a second point that needs to be made. We will need oil and gas

way into the future but for different things, for chemicals, for

plastics, household products. We will need oil and gas but for

different reasons. District heating we have in some areas. One of the

best adverts for it was a woman who said, now I have got district

heating, I don't have to wear my coat in the house. That was a

telling example, and it is a direction of travel we want to

encourage. We need to get to the point where we don't just name the

projects in Scotland because there are so few, we need these

everywhere. Renewable heat needs to be across the whole country and we

are just not doing it at the moment. We need stronger targets, and using

the technology and the companies we have in Scotland who could bring

that about now. We need a Warm Homes Act to make it happen. It is all

very well saying you want a transition but none of the parties

have a plan. I have seen the Greens have a plan for 200,000 jobs. My

father works in the North Sea, has worked there on and off for the last

30 years but every time there is a slump in the oil price he gets laid

off, then taken back again. That is not a reliable job. We need to work

towards getting people from the North Sea into renewables so they

can support their families. The man next to you. Regarding the

investment from Norway and renewables, Norway are obviously

putting aside money from their oil fields into an oil fund, we haven't

been doing that because it has been mismanaged over a generation or two.

What do you make of the panellists? I find it scary. In December all the

world governments agreed to limit the rise of the global temperature

to two degrees and this means 80% of all known oil fossil fuel reserves

will need to stay in the ground on torched. When you talk about gas as

a bridge for you all in order to implement renewables in 50 years,

that is simply not the reality we are in. We need a serious plan to

implement renewables straightaway. Thank you. Now let's hear from Clare

McWilliams, who has another question for the politicians. Should there be

a permanent ban on fracking in Scotland? The moratorium will be in

place until after the election, should that ban be permanent? Yes.

The research has been carried out by the SNP but they are focusing on

restoration and mitigating the impact. When we look at the

experience we have had, this is not the right way to go. We need to be

managing what we have in terms of oil and gas better, and investing in

big style renewables. That's the way forward for Scotland, not fracking.

No ifs, no buts, no fracking from Scottish Labour. Even if the

evidence is that it is safe for health, safe for the environment?

What about the jobs it could bring? We know about issues in the US to do

with methane, water quality issues, and a fundamental issue about

opening another new source of fossil fuels at a point when we needed

transition to use what we have got better and to move to a different

source of energy. For us it is going in the wrong direction. The reason

we have got a moratorium is because SNP activists, climate activists

demanded that the government acted. The moratorium cannot be just to get

them through the election, we don't want fracking to take place at all.

Fergus Ewing, should there be a permanent ban on fracking? This is a

big question for Scotland, it is a question for all of us as a country

to decide. We approached this with scepticism but we think we should

study all the evidence. Therefore, as well as the moratorium, a process

incidentally which was praised by Friends of the Earth, as was our

evidence process. We are taking evidence as how it may affect

Scotland. There's lots of evidence throughout the world but none about

how it might impact in. Therefore we are taking evidence on a whole range

of areas. The environment, transportation, at my behest

incidentally, public health, the economy and the process itself. That

evidence will be available in the autumn. There will then be a

national consultation as the energy minister, I wholly opposed the UK

Government's attempts to be able to carry out this activity beneath

people's homes without their consent. I oppose that and

successfully prevented that from happening in Scotland, and I was

also part of a Scottish Government move to transfer the licensing to

Scotland. We do not support the gung ho approach of the Conservatives

there should be an evidence -based approach on such a big decision, a

big decision could affect our futures, so let study the evidence

and then come to a decision. After all, as a lawyer you reach a verdict

after listening to the evidence. Alex Johnstone, do you think a

moratorium should have been introduced in the first place? The

Scottish Government will acquire the power for onshore gas and oil

production in Scotland. The moratorium is only for onshore

production. Hydraulic easing and other techniques are used under the

North Sea every day of the week. They are used successfully, safely

and in ways that don't damage the environment. They are used by

companies in Scotland who have the ability and skills necessary to do

this effectively. So he wouldn't support a permanent ban? Scotland

has a huge resource of oil and gas, we need to allow our industry to tap

that reserve. If we don't and they decide to do it south of the border

without our involvement, companies that are integral to the Scottish

economy, operating within the Scottish economy and in the North

Sea today, will find their future resides outside Scotland and we

cannot allow that to happen. Alex Cole Hamilton. It is interesting to

listen to Fergus Ewing squirm on that. Your party has not been

without flip-flopping on this issue. I am glad you brought that up. We

allowed our party to have a debate on that, the SNP didn't extend that

courtesy to their own members. Then your leader overruled it. As the job

of the policy committee to make sure our policy is coherent and scans and

read across, and it didn't on climate change, and that was the

right decision to take. That's OK, there will be dissent in our party

but we tolerate that. The SNP make their members sign an agreement not

to do that. As Sarah said, we cannot meet our energy needs by opening up

another frontier of fossil fuels. There is no question in the climate

change challenge to which fracking is part of the solution and we have

to be big about this. We have been big about this because Liberal

Democrats doubled the renewable of energy to 15% in just five years. It

shows how quickly we can do it if the political will is there. In

Germany, after the -- Fukushima, they close down their nuclear

energy. So you are saying a permanent ban on fracking?

Absolutely. Just to respond to the point, Fergus Ewing. We did debate

this at a party conference, there was a vote and the delegates

supported the position the Scottish Government had adopted. Let me say

this, there are many people strongly opposed to this, there are some

people strongly for it but there are many others who I think want to know

more about it. Surely one of the duties of government is to provide

independent, unbiased expert evidence so we can then have a

proper national debate and the whole country can be involved in reaching

the final decision, whatever it may be. Let's hear from some of the

audience. Richard Dickson from Friends of the Earth, do you think

the band should be permanent? Yes, obviously I do. I have some sympathy

for Fergus Ewing because the government cannot say something

really strong during the election. We are getting some interesting

messages from the First Minister. What sort of messages? She has said

she is personally highly sceptical about fracking and has said if there

is any suggestion of an adverse environmental impacts we won't have

fracking. I would like to suggest there will be an adverse

environmental impacts so hopefully that has stopped it now! We will

complete this process, and I'm convinced because of the evidence

around the world that has convinced France, the Netherlands and New York

State to ban fracking, when we have looked at that evidence we will make

that decision. Lady at the back. I would like to

scotch the myth we can rely on renewables. Wind is intermittent. We

do not have large-scale storage. You cited Germany as an example, a

shining example. Emissions have gone through the roof because they have

had to build coal fired power stations. We really need to be

realistic. It is all very well setting targets but who is going to

actually pay for the targets to be met? In the end it will be

consumers. You will be plunging far more people into fuel poverty with

York renewable future -- your renewable future if you pursue as

and fracking. Now for our next question from Scott Simpson. What

would you like to ask the politicians? Will renewable energy

be enough on its own to meet Scotland's needs or should we be

revisiting nuclear? Alex Johnson. No, renewable will not be enough on

its own. The reason is the intermittency we have heard of. If

we're going to use particularly onshore wind, it must be as part of

our balanced energy policy. If that is to be low carbon, it must include

nuclear. We have already made the mistake, in my view, of not

committing to replace nuclear stations in Scotland. We have made

another mistake that in order to achieve that, we are relying on

plants M Hunterston working beyond their lifetime. That is the mistake

they made in Japan. The Fukishima power station worked beyond its life

span. We are making the same mistakes with that we must consider

nuclear pounds for the long -- nuclear power for the long-term.

There are proposals for small, modular nuclear power stations which

can be made to work in the Scottish context and on shorter timescales.

The truth is, our overreliance on expensive, onshore wind energy means

we are now also over reliant on imported electricity through the

grid from south of the border, much of which is nuclear generated. We

did not build a nuclear power station but we have nuclear capacity

augmented by nuclear power from the south. Where do you stand on nuclear

energy? We are using nuclear energy at the moment. The key thing is we

must remain part of the UK to do that. We think the priority and

scholars should be investing in renewables. That is where we have

ways and onshore opportunities to come. Not so much in investing in

battery technology. We have new fleets of trains and new electric

cars and we need to reconsider what we are doing. -- reconfigure what we

are doing. Many people have criticised the procurement process

which has led to the UK Government approach. We think what they are

doing is they have taken wrong decisions. It is low carbon. The

point is we will benefit in years to come when they finally get the

investment going. It will take years to come. Members of the audience

have said we need to get moving on low carbon and invest so we can get

renewable heat and renewable electricity. We need to make the

most of our natural advantages in Scotland. That is what we are not

doing. That is where the Scottish parliament will make a difference.

We need a proper energy plan which weighs in the balance with all the

opportunities and make sure we work with the private sector and use the

green Investment Bank and get involved in those technologies. That

should be the priority for the next Scottish Government. Where are the

Lib Dems are nuclear power? We are opposed to nuclear power stations in

Scotland. 50 years into the nuclear experiment we have no viable

solution for dealing with waste. In terms of the renewables revolution,

as Scots, we often moan about the weather but it is one of the most

fantastic and most important assets. If we harness it we could power our

country but also have it as an export as well. We could sell it to

Europe and buy it back on the days when we are not producing power. We

have the storage capability which is advancing all the time. The

technology is building. We are seeing investment in renewable

technology which is not as intermittent. Tidal technology is

constant. You get power all the time. There is Singaporean

investment from Atlantis coming on stream soon. How we get communities

to buy into the importance of renewable technology. We heard our

gentleman in the front talking about carpeting the landscape with

windmills. There is negative stigma attached to renewable technology.

People do not see tangible benefit to renewable technology, other than

what they see as an eyesore on the horizon. We have not grappled back

community ownership, the paper to communities. If you give that

investment to communities, you will enlist hearts and minds would --

behind a renewables revolution in this country. We cannot treat

nuclear as a panacea. Remember the nuclear plant in England that will

be built as an energy cost of up to three times as much as wind energy.

We need to have a more diverse portfolio of renewable energy, not

just focusing on wind but also on hydro as we have and looking at

other tidal lounges and developing that further so we can deal with the

intermittency of wind power. The SNP says it is against nuclear power but

a third of Scotland's electricity comes from Torness and Hunterston.

You will not be able to stop relying on it yet, will you? We have said

they should continue to generate electricity as long as they can do

so. It is unfair for the people who work there to compare them even

indirectly with Fukishima because they are very closely regulated. We

have very high ambitions for renewables in Scotland. Winston

Churchill said, the solution in relation to electricity supply is

for righty and variety alone. Therefore, one cannot rely entirely

on renewables. -- is a riot he and the righty alone. That variety will

be a different kind. The capacity to restore electricity and,

incidentally, to use heat solutions as well is constantly growing.

Technology is improving. Also we support an integrated UK market

where Scotland can be the lungs of the UK in an integrated UK market.

It makes sense with the best conditions for renewable energy,

hydro and tidal, the largest tidal array in the world about to be put

into the water, providing the funding is not pulled by the UK

Government as it has done in other matters. We do need some gas CCF

power stations. The problem with nuclear is it is incredibly

expensive. It cost ?700,000 for gas. I am perplexed by the UK has put so

much of its eggs in the Hinkley point basket when we see the same

technology in Finland over shooting by threefold. The nuclear station at

Hinkley is not come on stream for another ten years for the bidders

are the answer to the energy security problems in the UK -- the

UK faces right now. I would like to take a second to challenge the

conventional wisdom that windmills are an eyesore. I think they

complement a lot of Scotland's industrialised landscape. They are

certainly no more an eyesore than coal and nuclear power and I think

we should encourage investment in wind power, as we do currently. Good

management and promote good management to make sure it works in

the Scottish landscape. Would you compromise the rule landscape?

Absolutely not. The Scottish Government says they should not be

allowed in national parks, why is allowed in national parks, why is

that? You work with allowed in national parks, why is

energy sector, what are your allowed in national parks, why is

demand. We need to reduce the energy we need. -- reducing demand. The

gentleman at the back. we need. -- reducing demand. The

stop it is wrecking the electricity supply we have at the moment, which

is why the English government, the UK Government is stopping the

subsidies. We have too much wind electricity in the grid already. It

is all very well talking about the storage coming online and

interconnected and all of that. This is fantastically expensive and wait

in the future. We are facing an energy crisis and I feel none of the

politicians are being realistic. Just a brief response on that point.

It is a good thing we are exporting to England. England and Scotland

have not been independent in electricity supply since 2005. When

it crosses the border is does not know it is doing so, it is

electricity. We need a balance. I would suggest in the short term the

UK does need more gas power stations. There is no method despite

the fact the UK Government has promised there will be gas power

stations. There is no method to bring it forward. In Scotland, we

have seen one close because there were extra transmission costs

compared to them being located south of the border. That is a practical

problem to creating the balance that we require. We need to move on.

Another question from Alan Morrison. What would you like to ask?

Recycling services vary in quality across the country. How can we

ensure there is a more uniform service across the country? There

has been a tremendous amount of faith attached to the recycling

experimental study have travelled a great distance. The labour- Lib Dem

government initially brought in the zero waste strategy. As such but we

have seen a sea change in the way behaviours around the country in

terms of picking things out day in and day out. It is a postcode

lottery at the moment. The number of households recycling has fallen to

its lowest level in seven years. I am sorry to hear that. There are

examples of really good practice. There is a logistical problem

because people who want to recycle do so in good faith. Sometimes they

miss the collection time and the recycling bin sits out of doors and

blows the contents over the street and that is the last time they do

that. We need to tighten up and get better. The reverse vending machines

can make recycling easier. If you are camping at a caravan site, there

are vending machines where you can see a tangible payoff for your

efforts to recycle. That is what we need to deploy if we're going change

behaviours. Sarah Boyett, we see Glasgow City Council sending 65,000

tonnes of waste to landfill. How can that be improved?

A key issue is what is happening to local authority funding. They have

got pressures of education and social care, and to do the radical

stuff we need in terms of investment, infrastructure and

education, to have investment means you are not chopping and changing

every few months or years. That is crucial so we would get rid of the

unfair council tax and replace it with a proper property tax. We would

enable local authorities to put in the investment they need. Do you

think local councils would, even with more money, make this a

priority? They have done over the years but with more funding it would

enable them to do this better and make sure they bring people with

them. In our area, knowing what the rules are and when they are changed,

that is one of the things that puts people off. People complain about

it, but we need to avoid wasting materials, avoid putting things into

landfill. We need to have the infrastructure to change the way we

do this and that means local authorities working together and

having the leadership from the Scottish Government, but the

finances crucial. What is your point? I recognise the fact we

should recycle as much as we physically can. Only the other week

was my recycling refused because there was a plant pot in it. This

goes beyond household. Oil is going to run out and we still have no

alternative for pitch in for roads. There is some on other ways for

reciting that haven't been thought of yet. How can we ensure there is

more of that uniformed service of recycling across the country? I see

good service locally near Aviemore and pretty comprehensive. But you

agree it is patchy? It may be and we need to do more to harmonise it. I

want to change the argument slightly because it is a big issue, not just

about households and their own waste. Sanjeev Gupta has stated he

wants to use scrap steel in Scotland and we have the opportunity to

decommission oil rigs, over 30 years ago guaranteed supply of steel so

there is an opportunity thereby to use the steel from the old oil rigs,

decommission it and use it to maintain our steel industry. There

is a bottling company, a major company in -- and there are lots of

good examples across the board but we need to do more. This is just

what we see, it is more than bottles and plastic bags. They're so much

more that can be done to recycle. Why dig things out of the earth when

we have them sitting in piles of rubbish already. What were the

Conservatives do to improve recycling in Scotland? There's a lot

of diversity in how we deal with recycling, and it is being done

differently in different places. In Angus and SNP authority 's closing

recycling centres. In another authority they have different bins,

the bins themselves have become a litter on the street. The diversity

of methods is adding cost. We need to consider again industrial sorting

of waste rather than relying on household sorting in every

circumstance because we need to recover whatever we can by whatever

means we can. And I think we need to have the courage in Scotland to

accept that energy recovery from waste is unacceptable way to recycle

in many circumstances. Man at the back in the green T-shirt. I happen

to agree to an extent with the gentleman from the Liberal Democrats

but all parties have tended to focus on individuals and households. Let's

look at town centres. My employer has more recycling bins in it than

the entirety of the town I live in. The customers who go through my

place of work have won four cups, liquids, plastics and general waste.

The bin in my town centre has one and you put everything in it. Man at

the front. I think we should broaden the conversation to be more about

reducing, reusing, ideas like the circular economy and how we can

implement that more widely. I agree with that. We have all been talking

about waste recycling but the whole thing is about making it

economically viable to repair goods, recycle and reuse goods. The

community approach is important but we also need to change the way the

economy works and we need a proper strategy from central government

that will work with local authorities and companies to get the

investment in that you have talked about on our streets and towns and

cities so we join this up, and that needs investment. That is a key

issue for local authorities to have the capacity to reinvest in reusing

materials. I agree, I think the debate needs to broaden out to

looking at preventative measures. The majority of waste comes out of

the manufacturing point, not the end user point. We also need to engage

in the culture we live in, a highly consumer led culture where we are

taught me can consume way beyond our means. We should take a broader

perspective on what culture each of the parties seeks to foster in

relation to that. I don't think we will have time to go around everyone

but Alex Cole Hamilton. The point about packaging is well made. I want

to talk about the fact recycling levels are in decline, I am sorry to

hear that but there is a need for engraving this in our culture. My

little boy is four years old, he comes home every day and sings a

song that they sing at the nursery. It is about recycling everyday. It

is a real earworm but here's the recycling enforcer in our house and

that gives me hope for the future that it is being instilled in our

schools. If a lot of us are migrants to the recycling world because we

didn't do it in the 1970s, our children have been born into a world

where it is the expectation. It is incumbent on us to leave that to

them. We have time for another question, this time from Olga

Bloeman. The expansion of air travel is incompatible with a sustainable

future, would the candidates agree with this statement? How would you

tackle the growth of the aviation industry effectively? Do you think

the expansion of air travel is compatible with a sustainable

future? We need to improve the future of the aviation industry and

get more efficiency for those who do travel. But do you think air travel

is compatible with a sustainable future? In world terms it may be

incompatible but if you look in the UK economy at Scotland's position

within that, it is entirely consistent to suggest that more

flights within Scotland may be consistent with that progress. That

means taking opportunities to make sure international flights come

directly to Scotland rather than feeder flights. And by changing the

way we tax, changing the way we regulate, we can get the benefit of

air travel here in Scotland without seeing an increase in the output, in

fact seeing an increase in the sustainability of air travel. I just

wanted to make the point that the consequences of air travel are not

helped by the people in Scotland. It is people in Asia and Africa

suffering right now from our decisions at not tackling climate

change effectively. It is irresponsible of us to say it is OK

in Scotland. We serve no one in Scotland or Africa by closing down

the Scottish economy which is why politicians in Scotland should take

responsible decisions. One of the early decisions the next Scottish

parliament will make will be whether to cut passenger duty. We have a gap

of ?100 billion over the lifetime of the next Scottish parliament if we

do that. We need to make sure it doesn't happen. Scottish Labour

would not do that, we would spend that money in investing, and we need

to think about making air more competitive with rail because it is

easier to get a flight to London than get a train and we need to make

rail travel much more affordable for people. Access, we still need air

flights, we are not saying we don't, but we also need alternatives,

particularly within the UK for long-distance trains. Give us the

opportunity to spend that money more wisely. It is a new power the

Scottish Parliament has, we need to use it in the right way. Fergus

Ewing, how would abolishing it affect the environment? If we want

more people to come to Scotland, and as tourism Minister I certainly do,

I would like there to be far more direct flights. If we reduce APD by

one half, which we pledged to do, we have heard the chief executive of

easyJet had 1.5 million passengers, most of them coming to Scotland. I

don't accept there is a direct correlation between more emissions,

it is just displacement between people choosing to go to other

countries. Also the APD in the UK is the highest in Europe, and sadly we

have the highest taxes and business rates on tourism. Why should we be

singled out? The SNP believes that if we stimulate APD reductions, we

will see fewer flights from the UK's congested airports. Ireland have

done it and have gained in their tourism industry. We could boost a

sector that in ten years could be the most important sector for the

country. You are shaking your head. 1.5 million new flyers coming into

Scotland. Our emissions from aviation account for 7% of emissions

totally, that will increase dramatically with 1.5 million,

that's tens of thousands of extra flights you are talking about.

There's no question in the climate change challenge to which the answer

is let's make it and cheaper to go by air travel. The man at the back.

I know there is a lot of argument about APD and whether it should go

up or down, but it seems to me that a more important issue really that

might be harder to reach agreement internationally is that according to

my understanding, aviation fuel isn't subject to the kind of taxes

that are on petrol and diesel for our motor vehicles. Alex Johnstone.

It is clearly the case that if we are to have a tax based system to

discourage people from flying, it must be an international agreement

that achieves that. The Scottish and UK economy simply shooting itself in

the foot will not do anybody any good. I wonder what you make of what

the panellists have been saying, Olga Bloeman. I think it is about

taking responsibility and challenging the priority that is put

on economic growth only. We have a responsibility to tackle climate

change because it is already on the way. I think it is important taxing

the aviation industry and supporting other alternatives. OK, and there we

must end it. That is all we have time for this evening. Thanks to our

panel, the audience and you at home for watching. I will be hosting our

final election debate on Tuesday, this time on the subject of housing.

You can apply to be in the audience on our online page but that is all

for now. Goodbye.