RAF Turnhouse Site
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3263, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on the development of the RAF Turnhouse site. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that BAA Lynton has earmarked the former RAF Turnhouse site or "Airwest" for medium-to long-term commercial development in support of the expanding cargo operations at Edinburgh Airport following the grant of outline planning consent in June 2000; further notes that the entire site is currently being marketed to potential commercial occupiers for a variety of airport-related uses; expresses its concern that Home Office plans for a possible accommodation centre for asylum seekers on that site are creating uncertainty and thus the site is in danger of becoming blighted, and therefore believes that the Scottish Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council should ask the Home Office to state clearly that it has no interest in the site and thereby permit BAA Lynton to proceed with its plans which are in the best interest of jobs and economic development in Edinburgh and the east of Scotland.
In proposing the motion, I wish to highlight the needs of the expanding commercial international airport in Edinburgh. We have already debated and agreed on the need for a railway link with the airport. Edinburgh is one of the fastest growing capitals in Europe, and its success is essential for the economy, jobs and commerce in the Scottish lowlands and the east of Scotland.
The airport has already undergone £100 million of redevelopment and it is set to benefit from that expansion. It follows that the needs of the cargo centre should not be neglected. BAA Lynton owns the site, which used to contain the buildings that belonged to RAF Turnhouse. For a considerable time, it has actively taken forward plans for the redevelopment of the site for cargo warehouses. As part of that programme, it has had discussions with the City of Edinburgh Council about plans to improve the Maybury roundabout, to allow better access to Turnhouse.
We underestimate the need for Edinburgh airport to expand its cargo warehousing capability at our peril. In the past nine years, there has been a colossal increase in the amount of cargo that has come into Edinburgh airport. In 1993, excluding mail, 1,212 metric tonnes of cargo came through the airport; by 2000, that figure had soared to 18,094 metric tonnes. Furthermore, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions has estimated that UK air cargo will double by 2010. It is therefore imperative that Edinburgh airport expands its cargo operation if it is to fight its weight as a world-class competitive airport in the 21st century.
Mr Richard Jeffrey, who is the managing director of BAA Edinburgh, has written to me. He said:
"If the site were lost to the proposed asylum seekers centre the effects would perhaps be twofold:
1. The north site is included within the long-term development plans for Edinburgh airport. If lost, this may put pressure on our remaining land supply in the cargo area and constrain operational development and cargo growth.
2. The location of an asylum seekers centre may simply deter third party investment in the location, albeit for no sound reason.
The use of this land for the proposed development of cargo operations, airport related business space and other airport ancillary needs would have a much greater net benefit for the local economy than any other use."
The Home Office is, of course, aware of BAA Lynton's plans, which have received outline planning permission. Apparently, it is still considering whether the site should be compulsorily purchased as an accommodation centre for 750 asylum seekers. BAA Lynton's position is that protracted delay on behalf of the Home Office is giving rise to a mood of uncertainty that could result in the site's becoming blighted. It is clear that that would be contrary to the best interests of Edinburgh and the east of Scotland.
In a letter to me dated 5 September, Neal Franklin of the new policy directorate of the Home Office said:
"The Home Office is currently in discussion with the Department for Transport regarding its consultation document published in July, which included plans to expand Edinburgh Airport."
Therefore, Edinburgh airport's interests are being considered by the Home Office and we know that Scottish Executive ministers must also—rightly—be consulted.
Mr Iain Gray, who was then Minister for Social Justice, wrote to me on 9 April 2002 to say that
"the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, includes a provision which would require the Home Secretary to consult with Scottish Ministers before deciding to establish an accommodation centre anywhere in Scotland."
In that connection, the results of a survey that was carried out earlier this year revealed that approaching 90 per cent of those who live close to the airport on the western perimeter of Edinburgh are opposed to the proposal. The most significant and frequently expressed concerns were about security, as the site is adjacent to Edinburgh international airport. Even if the Home Office decides to disregard arguments about security, which it would be less than wise to do, it cannot ignore the legitimate needs of cargo interests at the airport.
BAA Lynton has earmarked the former RAF Turnhouse site—or "Airwest"—for medium to long-term commercial development in support of the expanding cargo operations at Edinburgh airport, following the grant of outline planning consent in June 2000. The entire site has been actively marketed to potential commercial occupiers for a variety of potential airport-related uses. BAA Lynton—the developer of the site—envisages a variety of build-to-suit opportunities being made available to commercial occupiers.
I also understand that the City of Edinburgh Council has grave reservations about the suitability of the site for asylum seekers. In the circumstances, I will be grateful if the minister will make clear to the Home Office the overwhelming case for Edinburgh's economic interests being allowed to flourish and that another site or sites in Scotland should be considered for asylum seekers. He should make clear to the Home Office the strength of public opinion from all political parties on the matter.
I am grateful to David McLetchie for his support for the motion. I express gratitude to Margaret Smith and Donald Gorrie for signing the motion. I am also grateful to Councillor Donald Anderson, leader of the Labour group on the City of Edinburgh Council. He states in today's Edinburgh Evening News:
"Our understanding is this proposal would interfere with the development of the airport and that is something we could not support."
I submit that the statements I have quoted represent a groundswell of public opinion in support of Edinburgh as a city of commerce, that that theme should be adopted and that asylum seekers should be well cared for and well looked after at a more appropriate place or places.
I find myself in the slightly unusual position of agreeing totally with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. I congratulate him on securing the debate.
We are having the debate against a background of continued uncertainty and public silence from the Home Office on an important issue. Since February, when the Home Office made the initial announcement that the Turnhouse site was under consideration as an accommodation centre, I and my Westminster colleague, John Barrett MP, have met local residents in the area and representatives of the BAA to discuss their concerns. Both groups have lived and functioned with what amounts to planning blight and uncertainty since the announcement. I call on the Home Office to make a speedy decision not to go ahead with Turnhouse as an accommodation centre site. That view is shared by local residents, the City of Edinburgh Council—as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton outlined—BAA and local representatives of all mainstream parties, who I believe have handled the issue with the necessary sensitivity and care.
A few years ago, before I entered politics, I was the Scottish organiser for the United Nations Association and was involved in fundraising for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I had above my desk a UNHCR poster. It had a photograph of Albert Einstein and the caption, "Einstein was a refugee." I believe totally in our country's responsibilities under the UN charter for refugees and I believe totally in our responsibility as human beings to those who are fleeing persecution. Those responsibilities extend to ensuring that when asylum seekers enter this country we treat them with respect and give them the services they require in the best possible location.
Why have I consistently opposed the siting of an accommodation centre at Turnhouse? Because I believe that it is wrong for local residents and for asylum seekers alike.
First, although the accommodation centre would have an impact on the local community and services, the Home Office failed to consult and engage with the City of Edinburgh Council, elected representatives and local residents prior to making the statement. The Home Office has cancelled meetings with me and it has failed to consult people properly. It has failed to do the work that is necessary—with the council, with the national health service, with the police and with other service providers—to evaluate the impact that such a centre would have on local services, particularly housing provision, policing and the local NHS.
I have raised the issue of the pressures there would be on social housing in the city if, each year, 2,000 people were given leave to remain and stayed in the area. The Home Office responded to me in March, stating:
"We have yet to resolve the practical details of what happens when a resident is granted status."
Those sorts of issues should have been discussed with the City of Edinburgh Council prior to an announcement.
Secondly, I am opposed in principle to 750-bed accommodation centres, particularly if they are in semi-rural areas such as Turnhouse. That is not the best way to integrate people into our country. Refugee organisations, charities and churches have all voiced similar concerns. Nick Hardwick, chief executive of the Refugee Council, stated:
"We are very concerned about the proposed accommodation centres. The experience of similar centres on the continent which are away from urban centres and where everything is provided on site is that the asylum seekers become very isolated and institutionalised and those who are allowed to stay have huge problems properly integrating."
A number of children's charities have raised specific concerns about children and families being included in pilot centres, given that 80 per cent of the centre population would be young males.
Crucially, I believe that this is the wrong location because it would limit the expansion and continued success of Edinburgh airport. The eight hectare site in question has secured outline planning consent for airport and ancillary uses in the medium and long term. BAA Lynton and Edinburgh airport have both made it clear that its use for anything else would have a seriously detrimental impact not only on the airport but on the economy of the city and Scotland. It is clear from the aviation consultation document and the draft west Edinburgh planning framework that the continued expansion of Edinburgh airport is of great national importance.
I have raised the matter with the Home Office on several occasions and I know that other colleagues have done the same. I am pleased to report that at least the Home Office has confirmed to me in the past week that the minister responsible will not consider the siting of an accommodation centre in isolation and has liaised with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the recently published aviation consultation document. The Home Office has assured me that that document and the expansion of the airport will play a part in the minister's assessment of whether to go ahead with the accommodation centre. It is a pity that such liaison between Westminster departments did not take place in advance of the February announcement.
Edinburgh airport is the fastest-growing airport in the United Kingdom. It has enjoyed 12 per cent year-on-year growth in passenger numbers as well as rapid growth in freight carried. The airport supports Edinburgh's economy and tourism industry. Given that the Executive supports plans for a rail link and a transport interchange at the airport—and that BAA plans a major cargo strategy—it is clear that jobs in the local economy would suffer if expansion were curtailed.
As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton outlined, BAA has made it clear that the site is included in the long-term development plans for Edinburgh airport. If the site were lost, that would put pressure on the remaining land supply, constrain operational development and cargo growth and deter third-party investment.
I hope that the Scottish Executive will do all it can to secure a change of mind by the Home Office and an early response. I hope that the Scottish Executive will agree that we want a Scotland in which people of all cultures and backgrounds live together in mutual respect, and one in which Edinburgh continues to thrive. Neither of those aims will be brought about by a misguided development at the site in question.
I congratulate James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate and I subscribe to many of his and Margaret Smith's points. The debate is important for two reasons. First, there is the issue of how we treat asylum seekers and whether accommodation centres are the best method of assimilating them. Secondly, there is the issue of the economic expansion not only of the airport, but of Scotland.
I do not believe that accommodation centres are the best way in which to integrate people. The debate is ironic, given that, this week, the census figures have revealed the potentially cataclysmic decline in the Scottish population. There has been talk of the return of the expatriate community and Professor Wright from Stirling mentioned a need for immigration. We must assimilate people into the country. There is a labour shortage in key sectors in Edinburgh, not only in the highly skilled sectors, but in hotels, which are at the lower end of the food chain, if I may put it that way. Without Kiwi and Australian students working away, many major hotels in the city would have great difficulties. We need the labour that those people provide to assist the growth of our community. Fiona Hyslop will deal further with asylum seekers.
We must consider separately the issues of economic development and the expansion of the airport. The expansion of the airport is fundamental. I do not want to be pedantic about one of the points Margaret Smith made, but Edinburgh airport is not the fastest-growing airport in Scotland or the UK; it is the fastest-growing BAA airport. The growth at Prestwick surpasses that at Edinburgh, but BAA spin-doctors have put a spin on the matter. However, I do not denigrate the growth at Edinburgh airport, which has benefited the city and individual citizens such as me.
Fiona Hyslop has visited the cargo facilities. No doubt Margaret Smith has done the same. There is a need for expansion. The current facilities are antediluvian and they must be improved. Given what already exists at Ratho and Newbridge, the site provides an opportunity to create a greater intermodal interchange and hub that would add value not only to the airport's cargo operations, but to Edinburgh, given the M8 and M9 access and the road network.
I am glad that BAA Lynton seems to be returning to being an airport rather than a retail developer. It has given up and sold out in the McArthurGlen outlet, although I think that it retains ownership of its Livingston outlet. BAA Lynton should concentrate on the important hub that I mentioned.
Edinburgh is naturally constrained to the north by the River Forth and to the south by the Pentland hills. Only a set area is available for economic development. The site we are discussing is a key area and has always been cherished. We must consider carefully any extension that breaches the green belt, but we have an opportunity to allow Edinburgh to grow through rail links to the airport and cargo facilities, which will add value to the city.
We also have to accept the fact that there is room for expansion not only of cargo facilities. Park-and-ride facilities are a proposed method of addressing traffic congestion. I know that the preferred park-and-ride facility is not exactly adjacent to RAF Turnhouse, but it is not that far away, down towards the Newbridge area, at the end of the footprint of the runway there.
The area must be preserved for the growth of the airport and for the expansion of the city's economic development. Such opportunity does not exist to the north or the south, and the possibilities for moving eastwards are constrained by Musselburgh, Port Seton and all that other area. The only other natural land bank for the city of Edinburgh is the brownfield site that is controlled by the Forth Ports Authority. That is being addressed, correctly, by the waterfront development. We must keep it together for the benefit of all our citizens and the economic progress of our city in the 21st century.
Today's debate raises important issues about development in the east of Scotland and the contribution that improved transport services, including air services, can make to economic growth. However, I caution against the tendency to use such issues as a surrogate mechanism for debating asylum policy. Asylum policy is best addressed by the UK Government, for that is where the responsibility lies. We should restrict our comments to the impacts on devolved areas of service provision. To some degree, members have done that, but we are in danger of straying into a general debate about asylum policy.
I recognise that, as part of the progress of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Scottish ministers will be consulted on any proposed sites in Scotland. I expect that, in their responses to such consultation, the Scottish ministers will make comments based on all aspects of a site, including the economic development issues that have been mentioned. It is to those issues—economics and transport—that I now turn.
It is clear that the west Edinburgh area is important not only to the city of Edinburgh, but to the whole of east central Scotland, including Livingston, the rest of West Lothian, Fife and many other areas. It is important as a direct provider of employment, as a key transport corridor for tourists who are moving into or out of the country and, as has been mentioned, for its air freight potential.
I accept Mr MacAskill's point that Edinburgh airport is perhaps not the fastest-growing airport in Scotland, but it is one of the fastest-growing airports in the UK. Its future expansion is desirable and is being examined as part of the Government consultation that was launched in the summer. I have been in contact with BAA officials on many occasions and have visited the airport many times, and I am confident that, once the airline industry settles down following the shock of 11 September, Edinburgh airport will grow even more strongly than it has over the past year.
The growth in air freight is of central important to the east central Scotland economy. Much of the freight that is moved in that way is the high-value, low-volume freight that is involved in some of the industries that we are trying to develop, such as the electronics and biotechnology industries. To help support the Executive's plans to develop those high-knowledge, high-wage parts of the economy, we need a robust air freight system. The proximity of many key Scottish financial institutions to Edinburgh airport also underlines the continuing need to develop the airport.
The future of RAF Turnhouse must be considered carefully in that economic context. I am sure that the public consultation that is under way on the future development of the west Edinburgh area will take full cognisance of the economic development issues that are associated with the airport.
The former RAF Turnhouse site is a vital component in the development of the east of Scotland economy, and we should consider all its future potential uses very carefully. I believe that the continued development and expansion of Edinburgh airport, with the potential use of the RAF Turnhouse site, is desirable.
I take this opportunity to add a few remarks in support of my colleague, James Douglas-Hamilton, and other members who have spoken this evening.
Unlike other speakers, I think that it is high time that the Home Office's persistent refusal to state whether it wishes to use the RAF Turnhouse site as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers is resolved, and that a decision on the matter is reached quickly. The indecision has been like a ball and chain fastened to BAA Lynton and is seriously hampering its plans to expand the airport and its cargo capacity. We must now cut free from that ball and chain and conclude the matter once and for all. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton stated, it is perilous to underestimate how much Edinburgh airport needs to expand if it is to become a competitive world-class airport in the 21st century.
The commercial ambitions of BAA are important to its development at Edinburgh of a dynamic, efficient and modern airport that has facilities to rival its competitors throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. It is the duty of government at all levels to ensure that those commercial ambitions are not frustrated indefinitely by what is a form of planning blight, as has been pointed out.
The air cargo industry is booming and is expected to double in size in 10 years. With the further investment of a cargo centre and other commercial developments at the airport, we could finally see developments—as Kenny MacAskill pointed out—such as the rail link from the city centre to the airport, to which the Executive aspires and which is supported by members of all parties in the Parliament. Apart from the rail dimension, there is a further advantage in terms of the proximity of the airport and its site to the roads network in Scotland, with the M8, M9 and M90 all being within a mile of the airport.
There is also an employment impact because the airport is, directly and indirectly, a major employer and supports more than 7,000 jobs in Scotland. If we have the opportunity to expand the cargo industry, with the general expansion in aviation throughout the world, that jobs figure could rise significantly over the next decade and bring more employment to people living in the Edinburgh and Lothians.
For all those reasons—the economic reasons to which we have alluded and the many other reasons that were cogently presented by Margaret Smith in her speech—the Home Office needs to go back to the drawing board and abandon any plans that it might still harbour to use the Turnhouse site as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers.
I take slight issue with Bristow Muldoon because I do not think that it is inappropriate for us to discuss asylum; it is an issue that straddles the devolved-reserved divide. I have no doubt that the general principles of policy should be a matter for Her Majesty's Government at Westminster, but we would have to deal with the consequences of the accommodation centre and the dispersal policy, and of the impact that those would have on local services and communities. Therefore, it is appropriate that the asylum seekers aspect is also referred to in the debate on the suitability of the Turnhouse site.
I do not think that any of us seriously disputes that accommodation centres are necessary or that the country as a whole should be involved in the dispersal programme while asylum seekers' claims are investigated and processed. I hope that that can be done a good deal more quickly than is currently the case, so that applicants need not be housed in such centres for longer than is necessary to conduct proper determinations of their applications.
It is clear from members' speeches from all sides of the chamber that the Turnhouse site is manifestly unsuitable for accommodating asylum seekers and that there exists the option of an alternative development that will be of considerable economic benefit to Edinburgh and the Lothians and, indeed, the wider Scottish economy. The time has come for the fog of indecision that hangs over Turnhouse to be lifted by the Home Office. I hope that the minister, on behalf of the Executive, will forcefully communicate that point of view to the Home Office.
I agree with many of the remarks that have been made. However, I would like to draw attention to what I see as two separate but related debates in the terms of the motion. I think that everybody in the chamber agrees on the importance of Edinburgh airport to the economy of the Lothians and Scotland. Remarks along those lines have been well made. I think that we all stand and will stand together—cross-party—in ensuring that the best case for Edinburgh airport will be presented in the future.
Only 10 days ago I was taken on a tour of the perimeter of Edinburgh airport, because I wanted to find out more about the area's growth needs and where the cargo base would be sited. I happened to be at the airport in support of a constituent who had concerns about the development of park-and-fly facilities there. It is essential that we acknowledge the economic importance of the expansion and development of Edinburgh airport—not just for the City of Edinburgh Council, but for West Lothian Council, because of the developments around Ratho and beyond.
I acknowledge that any development to the east of Edinburgh airport would have an impact on the economic viability of the cargo base and any other business development at the airport—it is right that we pay attention to that issue. However, I am concerned when people link it to the case for setting up accommodation centres for asylum seekers. I disagree with David McLetchie's claim that no one disputes that accommodation centres are necessary. I do, for the same reasons that the City of Edinburgh Council suspended its discussions with the national asylum support service. The best way of dealing with asylum seekers and of ensuring that they are well cared for is to have a genuine dispersal process that allows councils to accommodate asylum seekers in the community. The children of asylum seekers would then be able to attend local schools, receive the support that they need and have their health needs met. I know that because almost two years ago, in response to a petition, the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee visited Sighthill to examine the consequences of siting many asylum seekers in one location.
Does Fiona Hyslop subscribe to that view because the current lengthy process of dealing with applications makes the approach that she has outlined appropriate? If applications were dealt with much more speedily—within two months, rather than 18 months—would she still argue that there should be no accommodation centres?
There are two problems. The first relates to how we deal with people who are fleeing persecution. Secondly, I agree with David McLetchie that the process of dealing with applications is too lengthy and that they should be dealt with much more speedily.
I turn to the proposed accommodation centre at Turnhouse. Although Turnhouse was earmarked as a possible site for an accommodation centre, it was not included in the first batch of centres. Four sites were announced, but they were all located in England. Amid widespread public concern, a number of councils in England have refused to grant permission for development of accommodation centres. The Westminster Government is having difficulties with the whole concept of accommodation centres, let alone its proposal for a centre at Turnhouse.
We should turn our attention to the planning needs of Edinburgh airport and not get hung up about the idea that in the near future Turnhouse will become the site of an accommodation centre. I do not think that that will happen. The City of Edinburgh Council was willing and able to negotiate with NASS about genuine dispersal within the community in Edinburgh. That is the route that we should follow.
During consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I lodged an amendment that would have allowed local authorities to retain the control that they once had over housing for asylum seekers. If the Parliament had supported that amendment, we would have avoided the planning and other problems with which people in west Edinburgh have had to deal. At the time, I was accused of approaching the issue of housing for asylum seekers as a constitutional matter. This debate shows that my amendment was a practical measure that the Parliament could and should have supported. Had it done so, we would not be debating a proposal that would compromise the economic development of Edinburgh airport and prevent us from providing for the needs of asylum seekers and—most important—their children, in this place of which we want to be proud.
My interest in Edinburgh airport is in the first place historical. Like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I used to be the MP for Edinburgh West. In my new role as MSP for Central Scotland, I also have a vested interest in the airport. The success of Edinburgh airport in handling both freight and passengers is very important to many people in Central Scotland whom I seek to represent. For my constituents, Edinburgh airport is more accessible than Glasgow airport.
In the early 1970s, I was one of the great enthusiasts for a central Scotland airport. It is interesting that that concept is in the public domain again. At that time, it was a far better idea than was developing Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. However, that is one of the many arguments that I have lost. Although the concept of a central Scotland airport is still worth considering, I would be concerned if it were used as an excuse for not having proper developments at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The completion of any totally new airport must be 20 or 30 years in the future, if it happens at all. We need Edinburgh airport. It is important not only for Edinburgh but for a large swathe of Scotland. I support fully the necessity of developing it.
If we are to have a large number of asylum seekers together, away from other people and on the fringes of the city, we might as well put them in jail. With local bus fares being what they are, they would never be able to get into town even if there was a bus, which there is not. What on earth would those wretched people do all day if they were cooped up and could not get around?
If I understood Fiona Hyslop correctly, I am on the same side as her. There should be smaller groups of asylum seekers in the community, in towns and cities. It might be difficult to find accommodation, but we must seek to achieve that.
For those two reasons, I urge the Home Office first to get a grip and stop the blight on the area and secondly, not to use the proposal for an asylum seeker development at Turnhouse but instead to co-operate with local authorities to deal better with asylum seekers.
I start by commending Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for securing tonight's debate, which offers us an opportunity to discuss the future of an area and an industry that are important to Scotland's future economic prosperity.
On 23 July, we, together with the UK Department for Transport, published the consultation document on the future development of air transport in Scotland. That is part of the process of setting out our air transport policy for the next 30 years. When we discuss aviation in Scotland in the next 30 years, we will be addressing one of the key infrastructure issues for the future prospects for economic development. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the commercial opportunities for Edinburgh in the air freight sector.
Along with the significant passenger growth that is predicted in the consultation document, there are predictions of dynamic growth in freight. That promises an exciting future for Edinburgh airport and our other major airports throughout Scotland. Edinburgh is already a dominant airmail centre and has great advantages for express parcels and airmail now and in the future. Those come from its position close to many destinations in the central belt, its strategic road links and its proximity to freight users. The consultation document predicts significant growth in freight at Edinburgh airport over the next 30 years. Of course, rail links to the airport will only add to that potential.
The possibilities are huge and the capacity of the air freight sector to deliver is vital to the development of many important industries, many of which, as Bristow Muldoon said, are of low volume and high value, for which air freight is particularly suitable.
As with the growth in passenger travel, there are many considerations to take into account, not least environmental factors. It is right that those be taken into account at the same time as we study the benefits to the economy. It is also right that major developments be viewed as part of the broader picture and considered in the context of the planning process.
We must look ahead and ensure that we safeguard our options for the future. That is why the Lothian structure plan acknowledges the important role of Edinburgh airport in the wider economy and gives strategic planning policy support for its future growth.
BAA Lynton bought the former RAF Turnhouse site from the Ministry of Defence more than two years ago. It has planning policy support for the kind of development that Lord James has described and it has specific permission in place at the outline stage for redevelopment for airport-related business activity.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of a specific future development proposal at Turnhouse. As members will be aware, decisions on such matters could arrive on the desk of Scottish ministers, so, as a minister, I can say nothing that might prejudge any such decision. However, I can advise members that the Executive has been considering the long-term strategic future of the area through the preparation of a national planning policy statement on west Edinburgh.
West Edinburgh, which is centred around the airport, is of huge importance to Scotland's economy. It is also regarded as being of national significance in transport and environmental terms. For that reason, on 23 August 2002, the Scottish Executive, the City of Edinburgh Council and the local enterprise company jointly issued a draft planning framework for public consultation. I know that Margaret Smith and others have been closely involved in that consultation process already.
In our view, providing that congestion problems can be overcome and issues of accessibility and environmental quality addressed, west Edinburgh creates a unique opportunity in Scotland for an internationally significant business location. The planning framework is intended to safeguard long-term opportunities for economic development and sustainable transport and to provide a sound basis for guiding investment and planning decisions.
From a planning perspective, the existence of a rapidly growing airport is a major factor. BAA, as the owner of the airport, has been involved in a stakeholder advisory group, which was set up to inform the work on the planning framework. We are well aware of BAA's aspirations and concerns and look forward to receiving feedback on the draft planning framework, as part of the wider consultation process.
It is important that members are clear about the position of the Turnhouse site in planning terms. Plans for the redevelopment of the site for air cargo and related purposes received outline clearance in June 2000. An application for detailed planning permission has not yet been made, but that is a matter for BAA, and there is no constraint that would prevent the company from submitting such an application if it so wished. Outline planning permission is one of the considerations that face present and potential owners of the site.
The establishment and management of accommodation centres for asylum seekers are reserved matters, but social justice ministers in particular have been in regular dialogue with the Home Office and the Scotland Office on a range of asylum issues. We are clear about the importance of enabling asylum seekers in Scotland to feel welcome. Over recent months, my colleagues have discussed the issue with Home Office ministers and they will continue to do so. The discussions include our role as formal consultees on any new development of an accommodation centre in Scotland, for which the Home Office would be the developer. Although Government departments have Crown exemption from the requirement to submit formal planning applications, non-statutory notice of proposed development procedures are followed in such cases.
Any proposal for the Turnhouse site would be a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council in the first instance. If the council objected to the proposal, the Home Office could then refer it to the Scottish ministers for a final decision. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on proposals for development, as a planning application might come before Scottish ministers. It is important that members note that such use of the Turnhouse site would require not only that the Home Office decide to pursue that course of action—and it has not made such a decision so far—but that the Home Office purchase a highly valuable site that has existing planning permission for a different use. The Home Office would be required to follow the planning procedures that I have described. That is a matter for the Home Office to consider, but it is fully aware of the transport and economic significance of the site, which we will continue to discuss with it.
Is the minister saying that, in the event of the Home Office proceeding with a compulsory purchase order to which the council objected, the final decision would be in the hands of the Scottish ministers?
Responsibility for policy on accommodation centres lies with the Home Office. Responsibility for planning permission—whether in relation to a detailed planning application for the development of the site as intended by its present owners or for any other use by the Home Office or anyone else—lies with the devolved planning system and, ultimately, with Scottish ministers.
I reassure all members that we are well aware of the significance of west Edinburgh and of the air freight industry. We are also well aware of the outline plans that exist for the use of the Turnhouse site. We will continue to address those important issues, and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to do so today.
That concludes the debate. I remind the note-takers in the public gallery that they will be able to print out a full transcript of the debate tomorrow morning via the internet.
Meeting closed at 17:44.