The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 14018 in the name of Neil Findlay on Edinburgh Airport flight path trial, lack of community consultation. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would invite all those members who wish to take part in this debate to please press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would also further invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. Indeed, members of the public who are leaving the chamber also to leave quickly and quietly, please. I now call on Mr Findlay, seven minutes so thereby. Many of us use air travel, whether that be for work purposes or for leisure or whatever. No matter how environmentally responsible we want to be, sometimes air travel is just unavoidable. People who live near an airport know and accept that they have to endure some disruption. However, it is incumbent upon the airport authorities to keep such disruption to a minimum and, indeed, to reduce that disruption wherever and whenever possible. That, to me, seems fair and reasonable when I think that it would be fair to say that most people would expect that approach to be the case. At Edinburgh airport, established flight paths have been in existence for years. Communities have grown around them and people have, to an extent, learned to live with the disturbance that they have caused. People choose to live under them, know that they are there and planes have taken off and landed at the airport go over several industrial estates such as Newbridge and Houston and areas of open countryside. The airport copes well with the volume of air traffic and, indeed, there is capacity to spare. Not everyone is happy with the current arrangements, but they have been in place for some time. Therefore, it was a real surprise that residents in the Broxburn uphall in Lithgow and Bones areas found out that their homes would be sitting underneath a new flight path and that a trial was indeed under way. No consultation, no input from those affected, no attempt to engage the community. The first, the new effort was when they heard aircraft roaring overhead. The airport authorities say that they do not need to hold a consultation, the Civil Aviation Authority guidance says, and I quote the need for consultation prior to the approval of airspace trials is left to the discretion of the CAA. I find that completely and utterly unacceptable. Unacceptable that such a major change with social, economic and environmental consequences for so many of us can proceed without any consultation with local people. Unacceptable that organisations such as the CAA and the airport do not see the need or benefit of engaging the public and unacceptable that a large company such as global infrastructure partners, the company that owns the airport, fails to recognise its obligations to the community, to local businesses and to near neighbours. I believe more than anything that it is that approach that has angered local people most. Why is it that corporations continue to ride roughshod over local people and think that they can do what they like and no one will notice and no one will care? However, the lack of consultation is just one element of that. Let's look at some other aspects of this, particularly the business case. Edinburgh airport says on its website that as we continue to see more passengers travel through airports than ever before, we will need to increase airspace capacity above central Scotland to cater for this growth. That is the rationale behind the trial, but the reality is somewhat different. In 2007, there were 128,000 air transport movements at Edinburgh airport, but by 2014 that had fallen to 110,000 movements, a 15 per cent drop using the existing flight paths. Passenger numbers are up to 10 million, but that 10 million and more can be comfortably accommodated within the present arrangements. There is plenty room for expansion, and we can safely assume that the airport was not even at capacity in 2007 or else new trials would have been undertaken then. The reality is that there is no business case based on the need for more capacity, none whatsoever. I think that the case of the London city airport maybe offers a better indicator of what global infrastructure partnership is really up to. They bought that airport in 2007 for £750 million. Despite protests from local people and from the London mayor, the bold Boris, they have rapidly expanded, increasing the number of flight paths going into and flying out of the airport. The airport has been held by that venture capital firm for 10 years, 10 years, yet that is the longest-held asset that it has, and it is currently up for sale for the expected to make a profit of £1 billion. I think that the strategy is clear. You buy an asset, you fatten it up through more flight paths and you flog it at huge profit, and the quicker you flog it the better. It is a perfect example of profit over people, no holds barred venture capitalism, I am sure. The chairman of GIB, one Sir John Major, will be picking up a few handy bonuses along the way. The evidence from London and the introduction of a new flight path, despite there being a drop of flight movements at Edinburgh, makes it perfectly legitimate to ask if global infrastructure partnership has exactly the same in mind for Edinburgh. It is not the real intention simply to fatten up the airport no matter the impact on local people and sell it off for a huge profit, irrespective of the impact on the local environment. What about that environmental impact? Another flight path is only designed for one thing, and that is to increase the number of flights. On top of that, the Scottish Government has stated that it will cut air passenger duty by 50 per cent. Is there any wonder with those two policies running that we have failed yet again and again to meet climate change targets? Once again, we see the Government trying to be all things to all people—the friend of the airline industry, yet at the same time the friend of the environment. What has really resonated with me the most is the social impact. I have had over 400 complaints alone. People losing sleep, feeling anxious, stressed and disturbed because of the noise levels generated. Scientific research tells us what happens to people when they face the number of flights above them and how the communities are affected. Some of the noise levels are above 90 decibels—I will finish here, Presiding Officer. That is an issue of grave concern in the east of West Lothian, Broxburn, Upholl and Lithgow, and over into the Falkirk area at Bones. It highlights how we treat our environment, how we treat communities and how large companies fail to consult and think that they can get away with it. I would urge the Scottish Government to intervene on behalf of my constituents, to urge the Civil Aviation Authority to stop the trial now and to go back and hold a full public consultation, as they should have done at the very beginning of their first sorry process. I now call on Colin Kear to be followed by Gavin Brown. Delighted to be called on this debate, it is not just because the airport happens to sit in my constituency of Edinburgh western that it is also the fact that, apart from the first four years of my life, I have lived no further than three miles away from the Edinburgh airport, and at this minute and times probably around about two miles away. I have lived with Edinburgh airport and I also understand what it is like to live under a flight path. It can be distressful, it can be something that really does impact on your life. I can go back to the days when you had vangards and tridents who were vastly noisier in their day to what we have now. I can see why people are upset when there is a change to a flight path. I can also see why they are a touch concerned or very concerned when they feel it is affecting them, particularly when there has not been an issue before. In terms of complaints from my constituents, I have to say that Mr Finlay tells us that there has been around 400 complaints that he has had in his area. I can actually be perfectly honest and say that I can count the amount of complaints from my constituents on two hands. That is just the way it is. We are perhaps a bit more used to the issue of the airport happening on our doorsteps. On top of that, I fully agree with Mr Finlay in terms of the effects that excessive noise makes. It is definitely health issues. All of the environment has to be taken into consideration. I make no apology for the fact that I am supportive of the airport. I think that those things should be consulted on, but they should also be evidence-based. There has to be something there that tells us that, if that is proving to be so difficult for particular areas, as it may be, I believe that the trial would then prove that we have a problem there and that it could be dealt with accordingly and stopped. If it is proved otherwise, perhaps I believe... Neil Finlay? If evidence, Mr Kerr, would like people to provide, there is one noise monitoring station in relation to the project and often it does not work in. I thank Mr Finlay for his intervention. I have made inquiries of that. As far as I know, there are three noise monitors scattered around. One is temporary and it gets moved and the other is static. I do not know what the result of those things are. That is the evidence that we need. Perhaps it brings forward the issue of what it would be consulting on if it does not have the evidence. That is one of the arguments that I have. One of the things that I do have a major problem with... No, I am reduced to four minutes and I have to go forward with... You are in your final minute now. What I would say is the issue on the business plans particularly. Yes, the Scottish Government is looking for more flights. I am fully supportive of more flights. It gives a better deal to the people of Scotland travelling public. The fact that the airport is an economic driver to the city and to the nation. What is more is the fact that if that were to come to some premature end, we would have a situation in which up to 10,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly, could be affected. That is why I am supportive of that. As I am finishing off shortly, I will say that I believe that the evidence should be brought forward. I believe that the evidence should be out there. It should be consulted on. I hope that the Scottish Government will take it into consideration. However, I do not want to see a situation in which we have anecdotal evidence or, in fact, guesswork at the moment. Thank you so much. I now call on Gowyn Brown to be followed by Hens Anamali. Thank you. I start by congratulating Neil Findlay on securing this debate today. I also for the enthusiasm and passion that he has put into this campaign over the last month or so. He certainly has, with the help of hundreds of constituents, put the agenda on the map, and it is rightly being discussed in Parliament today. Like Mr Findlay, I have had a substantial number of complaints from residents across West Lodian. From the tone and tenor of the emails, it is obvious to see the frustration and irritation that many of them felt about the number of planes, about the timings of the planes and about the impact that has had. One of the particular irritations was the fact, as Mr Findlay highlighted, that there was no consultation. Although, in strict legal terms, there may not be a requirement to consult, the question for organisations should be ought to consult as opposed to must-you consult. There are lessons to be learned not just by the airport but by many others, indeed private and public bodies there too. Whether the law requires it is one thing, whether you should do it or ought to do it to ameliorate concerns, is another matter, and lessons must be learned there. I want to come at this from a slightly different angle to try to find some solutions. I addressed my remarks in particular to the Scottish Government who may not have specific powers, but I know that the minister has influence. The first question that I want to ask is this. From the work that I have done, there seems to be no legal requirement for the trial to last six months. I have searched as much as I can and I could be proven wrong, but I do not think that there is any strict legal or regulatory requirement that it has to last six months. The obvious question for me is, can the trial be shortened? If it is not going to be halted overnight, as Mr Findlay has requested, is there a way of shortening it by a month or two months or more and still allowing it to be considered a successful trial in terms of CEA regulations? That way, instead of having to endure this until the 24th of December, which I understand as a current date. If it could be shortened by a month or two, while residents, I suspect, would still be unhappy about the process so far, the idea of it ending far sooner, I suspect, would be better than carrying it on until the 24th of December. I have certainly written to the airport strongly requesting that this be looked at in detail. Can it be shortened? I suspect that, if the minister were minded to do the same and other parties, perhaps we might get that to happen in practice. That is the first issue. The second issue is that it is more difficult, I guess, to change things at peak times. The time when all the flights are leaving at six in the morning, up to about eight in the morning, I suspect is more challenging to change. However, what are the particular concerns raised with me are the overnight flights, the fact that at two or three or four or five in the morning, residents are being woken up by planes, which is a completely different issue. Again, from my initial investigations, there does not seem to me to be any particular reason why that has to be the case. Again, in my letter to the airport, I have asked them to look specifically at that. If the trial cannot be halted and if some of the timings were stuck with and cannot be moved, surely the overnight flights, which are a particular concern to a number of residents, can be restricted severely in terms of where they pass over, or perhaps even stopped in their entirety in going over the residential areas. That may be wishful thinking, but I know that they could be restricted, at least partially. Again, if the Government were minded to write to the airport on those terms, at least we may get some comfort to residents, if not everything that they are asking for. It goes without saying whether it is ended before December or goes until December, but there has to be a full consultation with all residents afterwards. The analysis has to be undertaken so that decisions are taken for the good of residents going forward, and I will leave it there, Presiding Officer. I thank Neil Finlay for bringing this very important debate today. I understand that the new route trial out of Edinburgh Airport began on the 25th of June and will last for approximately six months, ending on the 24th of December. They started the trial of the new standard instrument departure SID route for aircraft departing to the west of the airport. However, residents are concerned that they have been notified of the trial but not consulted. Airports are permitted a certain amount of discretion by the civil aviation authority as to whether they consult, but it's good practice to do so. It's not only good practice, but I believe it is a moral duty to do so. It is clear to me that Edinburgh Airport has not carried out a serious consultation even though they plan to expand. It's a good that air passengers in Scotland are given an increasing array of choice, but this must be carefully thought out. Lack of concentration puts airports and its surroundings at risk on a number of levels, different levels, and the stand that Edinburgh Airport is in negotiations with the Chinese airline to run a new route from Scotland. I'm astounded that I'm assuming that Glasgow Airport is attempting a similar bid. The airlines will choose based on the aspects such as the ability to have a stable airport, so Edinburgh may have shot itself on the foot in terms of that particular airline. As Edinburgh Airport has committed itself to a full consultation if they wish the permanent change for the flight path. This means that there will still be many months of insecurity, uncertainty, and residents in particular will be very unhappy, but also I have to say that the airport's ability to expand the current plans will always be in doubt until that happens. Glasgow has an advantage in the sense that they don't need to consult in the west of Scotland and there is a large Chinese diaspora population. I have to say to Edinburgh Airport that they really need to think the strategy out more clearly and they need to make sure that their airport is evidently based so that airlines can be attracted to Scotland. I have to call upon the Government to really do something about this. Whilst I understand what the legislation currently is, what I don't understand is why the Scottish Government is not taking the side of the local community, the population, the people of Scotland. I would have, but I can't unfortunately. Therefore, I know that sometimes the Government may feel under pressure, but I have to say that when the local community around an airport suggests that they wish to be consulted, I think that should happen. I think any Government, what it's all would do that, would go that extra mile for the local community and I think that even the airport, if he wishes to have a good working relationship with the people surrounding its environment, it needs to carry the goodwill of the people with it. I, Presiding Officer, like to thank Neil Findlay once again for bringing this to this Parliament and highlighting the fact that the local constituents have not been consulted to the full and I fully support his calls for a proper and full consultation, taking on board the wishes of the local people. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call on Alison Johnston to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Neil Findlay for bringing this debate to the chamber this afternoon. I also like to thank all those constituents who have written to me and met with me to discuss this issue. This debate has certainly given us an opportunity to ensure that the voices of local communities affected are heard loud and clear. It's about time, too, because Edinburgh Airport and its owners, the global infrastructure partners, have failed to engage properly with the people that this trial impacts upon. Presiding Officer, this is quite an extraordinary case and one that is causing grave concern. Without consultation, my constituents have found themselves in an experiment, a new flight path trial, a six-month trial, and this surprise trial began in late June. Residents learned about it when flights roared overhead, so low that they can clearly read the delivery. Apparently, this is all okay with the Civil Aviation Authority. It fits in with its guidelines, but just because you don't need to consult doesn't mean that you shouldn't consult. However, my constituents, as Gavin Brown has pointed out, don't need six months. They cannot bear six months. The children who are exhausted and can hardly get up in the morning to go to school don't need six months. Those who have literally been reduced to tears by this issue, because of the impact of the relentless, hugely invasive noise pollution, the effect on their health and wellbeing, they don't need six months. They can assure Edinburgh Airport and global infrastructure partners now that this plan to grow the airport is not in balance with the needs of neighbouring communities. Mr Gordon Dewar knows that this trial and the way it is being conducted is an abject failure on several levels. The airport and its owners have failed to be fully transparent with local companies, and I am absolutely certain that a multinational investment company will be well aware that providing community councils with information is not a comprehensive consultation. They have to rely on tiny budgets and volunteer efforts.  What they have succeeded in doing is galvanising public opinion. People are now going door to door with leaflets but perhaps not the ones they've wanted. Colin Kear would have us believe that it's necessary to carry out the trial and then consult. Would we really take that approach when it came to an issue like GM crops perhaps? I don't think so. Does the member know how air pollution in this trial is being monitored? No, and nor, as of August 17, did the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport. This is a deeply worrying case. This is a company that has tried and failed, as Neil Findlay told us, to expand capacity at London City Airport and Gatwick Airport too. They want to inflate the value of their asset, they want to make it worth more, get permission to increase flights, even when, as we've heard, it is not needed. This trial has been imposed on thousands of residents under the new flight path since 25 June. Without any meaningful consultation, the airport has received thousands of complaints so far, and I have no doubt at all that that number will continue to grow and grow if this trial continues. It involves multiple flights every day, from six in the morning to almost midnight, loud and low flights over residents. It's scheduled to last until Christmas Eve and the noise and pollution that is being generated is significant. Residents know that declining airport movements at Edinburgh airport since 2008 negate any perceived need for a new flight path. There is not a commitment even to a second runway until at least 2040. What is this about? The Government has yet to meet its annual climate change targets, and may I suggest that this flawed trial is not part of the answer? There are minimal noise monitors, indeed my constituents are monitoring more diligently the noise than the airport is. There is a lack of air pollution monitoring, and really it is time now to look at stopping this flawed trial. The social and environmental impact of Edinburgh airport carrying out a new flight path trial is serious, and I am grateful to Neil Findlay for providing us with the opportunity to debate the issue in the Parliament chamber. First, I congratulate Edinburgh airport on the past expansion of its business. It now provides important flight connections to Europe, the Middle East and North America, as well as to other UK airports. As has already been pointed out in this chamber and at Westminster, at a time when Heathrow is grossly overburdened with traffic, it is encouraging to see Scottish airports enhance their passenger services. A record 10.2 million people used Edinburgh airport last year, and this figure is set to rise. This increase in business now enables the airport to employ directly or indirectly 8,000 people, which is good news for the surrounding area, including those who live in my constituency of Falkirk East. However, for those who are affected by this railroaded-in new flight path, the news is not so good. I have received a number of complaints from constituents in Bones and Blackness and the surrounding area, which forms part of the flight path. I know that my colleague Fiona Hyslop has received a significant number of complaints and conducted a survey among her affected constituents. My constituents have expressed deep concern not only about noise levels and pollution, but also by the sheer frequency of the flights that disturb affected constituents between 5am and 11pm daily. I heard two days ago that there was also one at 2.30 in the morning that there have also been protests over how dangerously low the planes fly over houses and how they are frightening the wildlife in the surrounding area. A proper public consultation could have resulted in some form of compromise being reached, for example, diverting the flight path further over the first of force perhaps. However, while the Edinburgh airport authorities appear on paper to be committed to seeking input from the affected communities, their first token gesture at a public meeting on this issue was not held until mid-August, nearly two months after the six-month flight path trial commenced on 25 June. Even then, notes may have been taken and boxes ticked, so to speak, but the airport authorities failed to seek any solution to assuage community concerns. Moreover, if following the trial, the Civil Aviation Authority gave the go-ahead, this six-month-long noise nuisance will become a permanent one. More than that, even the campaign group stop Edinburgh airspace trial contend that CAA principles governing flight paths are presently being breached by the trial. The new flight path trial sees planes below 4,000 feet five over additional areas of West Lothian and my Falkirk East constituency, and at such low altitudes, the noise impact of airspace changes are recognised by the CAA and expected to be considered as a dominating environmental factor. In accordance with the fundamental principle, the guidelines put to the CAA are clear that airspace changes should neither increase the number of people affected by the noise nor promote the dispersal of departure routes. There are many negative impacts that should have been considered before the trial went ahead. For instance, people's health. Proven studies show noise pollution can cause drastic developmental effects on people's wellbeing, including sleep deprivation and stress. I have heard at first hand how my constituents have been affected by sleep deprivation. There has also been a marked lack of transparency. The flight path monitors, whereby flights can fly one mile either side of the defined flight line, was not published. Information regarding the monitoring of sound levels, as we have already heard, which were breached at Ocho Tree for a period of time, was also not made available to the public. However, I understand that a community noise report is currently being produced by independent consultants, which will be available by local residents. I note that I am running out of time, convener, so I will—London City Airport and Gatwick Airport have already been covered by a number of speakers. The bottom line is that, in spite of the impact that this flight path trial would have on people, there was no proper consultation with the local community prior to its commencement. Consequently, nearly 2,000 complaints have been lodged with Edinburgh Airport so far, so on a poignant ethical and environmental issues such as this, I would urge the Government to send a clear message to the authorities at Edinburgh and other airports, no implementation without proper consultation. We now move to closing speech to the minister, Derek Mackay. Seven minutes are there by a pleased minister. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a very useful debate to hear the perspective of members from across the political spectrum on this issue around Edinburgh Airport. I think that much of the suggestions and comments have been helpful. I know that members are aware that, as Scottish Government, we haven't expressed a view as ministers on the flight path that would not be customary for us to do so. We have no decision-making role, as members are aware, in this issue. It would be a matter for the civil aviation authority, but I have heard some very interesting points that I want to return to. That said, the Government of course supports sustainable economic growth. The general growth at Edinburgh Airport, like the rest of aviation, is to be welcomed with over 10 million passengers in the internationalisation of Scottish business and tourist routes, as well as to be welcomed later today in Parliament, will have a debate or internationalising Scottish business and the other pro-economic development points of view, but we are, of course, not forgetting the environment. I wouldn't want members to be accused of hypocrisy being anti-airport one minute and pro-airport development the next, but that's not to say that the airport shouldn't have engaged comprehensively and in a transparent way. I think that they should, and certainly to calls about further engagement beyond the trial, should there be a comprehensive, wide-ranging and in-depth consultation with communities, of course they should. I would make some progress and then return to further intervention because there is a lot of ground to cover. I particularly wanted to pick up Gavin Brown's suggestion around the overnight flights and also truncating the trial period. I think that that's a very helpful suggestion. In terms of overnight arrivals, it is very difficult to ban overnight arrivals because what that could mean is that flights arriving into Scotland or into Edinburgh, if it was to happen at an individual airport, would simply be sent elsewhere. If it's not Scotland, so there is a terrible knock-on consequence of that, but I agree with the general direction of travel of trying to minimise overnight and late evening flights and early morning flights as well. Ban and no, but better management of that, yes. I will absolutely take up the suggestion to write to, as Transport Minister, Edinburgh Airport to say, once you have the data and evidence that you believe you require to inform your decision, make the trial period as short as it needs to be. I will support that call and write to Edinburgh Airport. It advises me that the aims of the trial, as the overall aims of introducing additional departure routes, are to reduce congestion, increase in time departure performance, reduce fuel burn on the ground and to meet that demand for growth without building another runway. Of course, there is a debate, as the second runway is required in the short, medium or long term. I have my doubts about the requirement for a second runway as well, but, for those other matters, I think that the trial period, if it can be truncated, should be truncated, and I will express that view from the chamber. I can take a quick intervention so that I can cover further ground. That's fair enough. The airport is, of course, going to provide the minister with what it wants to provide him with, but the reality is that there has been a 15 per cent drop in the number of movements. Therefore, surely the Government must question the evidence that has been provided by the airport of the need for that increased capacity. Absolutely reassure Mr Finlay that, if I were simply here to speak as Edinburgh Airport, I would be giving a completely different speech from the contribution that I would be making. One element of the briefing note that I think that we will all find very helpful, as well as the constituency members, is the main bullet point from Edinburgh Airport's briefing, which says that we understand that noise can have detrimental effect on those underneath flight paths and we understand that this trail is an imposition on people who did not buy a house under a flight path. I think that that's a very important point to be acknowledged and reflected upon when the airport is making decisions. Like some other members, I have lived underneath a flight path all of my life as it happens at Glasgow Airport, but of course there is an issue when people are faced with that for the first time. That is why consultation engagement is so important because it is a change to the living circumstances of people and that is why I would expect it to be conducted comprehensively. There is an environmental responsibility as well, which is to be borne in mind. Fiona Hyslop MSP cannot express a view as a Government minister but has expressed a very strong view as one of the member's affected constituents are affected. In terms of number of complaints, I think that it has been inundated through a constituency survey of hundreds of responses on the subject of other members. Neil Findlay, Alison Johnstone and others have described how constituents have contacted them as well, and I encourage Edinburgh and Gavin Brown Edinburgh Airport to reflect on that very closely in terms of the objectives that they are trying to achieve. Of course, that is not a change of flight path, but an additional flight path that is being consulted upon. I say that that is a matter for the civil aviation authority and it is, but I, of course, have transport responsibilities, a degree of aviation policy responsibility and environmental responsibilities as well. The powers that I have at my disposal, I would use very carefully to try to ensure that the right decisions are taken. However, that is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority in Edinburgh Airport. I would say to Hanzala Malik that the intervention that I wanted to make is that if you are keen for Scottish Government to be able to do more, you need to support the devolution of aviation policy to Scotland so that this Government, this Parliament and members would be more empowered to take an even more proactive approach in strengthening the consultation that we would all expect. I am advised by officials that, yes, as members have all described, the airport is less than a minute left. That is sweet retribution, Mr Malik, that I cannot respond to you in the way that you could not respond to me because I am within my last minute. I make the point that I would want community engagement to be strengthened. I hope that Edinburgh Airport will deliver what it has committed to in terms of that comprehensive engagement. People can engage with the official process and with elected members, and that will be fed in. Although I am advised that the airport is conducting that in accordance with the CAA guidance and the UK Department for Transport's guidance on environmental objectives, we would expect, as a Scottish Government, the local community's views to be taken into account fully, while the Government and Parliament do not have a formal role in the process. I very much hope that Edinburgh Airport and the CAA reflect on the views that are expressed in the chamber this afternoon and engage fully with all stakeholders and communities, particularly those in West Lothian, and they bring this trial to a close as quickly as possible and consider the next stage in the process. That is the message that I will convey to Edinburgh Airport. Thank you very much. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.


Hi, my name is Danny and I'm a lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Auckland and my research tends to focus on the effects of inequality on various aspects of people's psychological well-being. So one of the interesting things about inequality, and one of the things that we know from the literature, is that levels of inequality negatively affect everybody. So it doesn't matter if you're wealthy or you're poor, if you live in an unequal environment it has negative implications for people's well-being. One of the limitations to past research, however, has been that these studies have focused on cross-country comparisons. So for example, comparing Australia to New Zealand. We know that the countries vary by multiple things, not just in equality. So for example, one of the two countries has won the World Cup two consecutive years, two consecutive series in a row. And we also know that Australia and New Zealand differ along other dimensions. So by making these cross-country comparisons, we're not 100% certain that the levels of inequality are causing these negative implications for people's well-being. One of the really great things about the NSAID-AVS is the fact that we can do these comparisons within a single country. So by taking population level data, we're able to combine that with information that we have from individual participants and look at the effects of inequality within a region on people's psychological well-being, on their self-esteem, on how they view intergroup relations. As such, one of the studies that I recently conducted with Chris Sibley was looking at the effects of regional level inequality on people's self-esteem. In particular, what we looked at were people's perceptions of what they have relative to others, a term that we refer to as individual-based relative deprivation. As well as their perception that their group is receiving less than other groups in New Zealand, a concept that we refer to as group-based relative deprivation. In a set of analyses that we recently ran, we looked to see if the effects of inequality in people's particular region of residence, if that could predict people's levels of self-esteem via their perceptions of individual and group-based deprivation. So that is, does living in an unequal region affect people's perceptions of how much they have relative to others and in turn affect their self-esteem? What we found through a series of analyses was that the more unequal your neighborhood, the more you perceived others had more than you, and the more you perceived that other groups had more than your group in society. In turn, these perceptions of deprivation led to decrements in people's self-esteem. So long story short, if you live in unequal neighborhoods, it increases the perception that others have more than you, which in turn decreases your self-esteem. So one of the directions that we'd like to take this research in the future is to track these changes over time, and in particular, try and get closer to a causal relationship between living in unequal regions and these subsequent decrements to people's self-esteem. And the only way that we can do this is by the generous responses from participants and tracking these changes across time.