Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2987, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent publication of an economic impact assessment of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland at Ingliston which indicates that £250 million is generated for the economy of which £100 million supports the local Lothian economy; notes that 1.2 million visitors pass through the site each year; is concerned that Her Majesty's Government's White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, seeks to secure all of the 300-acre site for future development of Edinburgh Airport which threatens the future successful operation of the society and its year-round events; recognises the important role that the showpiece event, the Royal Highland Show, has for the farming sector, and, noting that this is an ideal site and that there will be a considerable expenditure from the public purse on public transport provision in the area, expresses its view that all parties concerned with economic, rural and transport interests should make further and urgent efforts to examine options for future co-existence of the society and Edinburgh Airport at Ingliston and make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport to achieve this.
I am very pleased that, at this very last moment before the recess, we still have the chance, rearranged though it is, to debate this motion. I thank the Presiding Officer for ensuring that, following today's incidents, the Parliament's democratic business has continued and we are able to have the debate. I also thank the minister for staying on to respond and members for remaining in the chamber after what has been a very long day.
I thank members from across the political parties for signing the motion, which is the culmination of the efforts of Lothians MSPs to register and raise publicly their concerns about the public interest in the economic, rural, transport and planning aspects of the Westminster Government's aviation white paper and its impacts on the west of Edinburgh and, specifically, on the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society. I will focus on the economic issues, but I trust that other members will address the rural, transport and planning aspects of the matter.
I congratulate the society on last week's very successful royal highland show, which more than 150,000 people attended. However, the show is only one of 150 events that take place at the society's site at Ingliston. With 1.2 million visitors during the year, the society's site competes with Edinburgh castle as a contributor to visitor numbers and bed nights in Edinburgh hotels. The Scottish motorcycle show, trade shows, large-scale rock concerts and gardening Scotland reflect the range of events that are staged there and all are serviced by excellent public transport to Edinburgh for the provision of hotels. The society also has 33 tenant companies, which add to the site's economic impact.
The debate is about two success stories that are close to each other in the west of Edinburgh and whose influence extends far beyond that limited area into the rest of the country. Their core businesses may differ, but they share the attribute of success and I want both to be successful.
The white paper has been produced, but we are still at a stage prior to legislation. As the draft consultation on the airport master plan was published in May, there is now an opportunity, even if it is at the very last moment, to pause and consider whether there remains any possibility of co-existence at the site. The debate is not about opening up the white paper, but minor alterations can still be made if the parties concerned are agreeable, and the secretary of state could be persuaded by any potential consensus.
As a Lothians MSP, I am absolutely convinced that expanded usage of Edinburgh airport is essential to the successful development of the Edinburgh economy, which in turn is essential to the development of the Scottish economy. I have absolutely no doubts about that—the airport's expansion must not be unnecessarily hampered—but that does not mean that we should ignore the RHASS and the role that it plays. Creative and co-operative thinking from all agencies and parties must be explored to make a final assessment of whether, with the offer of 100 acres to be taken by the airport, which would provide the aircraft apron capacity that the airport needs, there is any last remaining possibility of the society remaining on site.
We currently see the conduct of two, parallel, debates—one, on the Government's decisions on Edinburgh airport, is coming to an end; the other, on what should happen to that wider part of Edinburgh that is undoubtedly prime business development land, is starting. I have visited the new and impressive global headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I do not know whether the minister has; I urge him to do so if he has not. The potential for further international business park developments in that area is significant.
The RHASS is caught in the middle of those two debates. The Parliament must not become involved in the private transactions, positionings and counter-positionings of the airport and the society as part of any bargaining, pricing or negotiation process, but the issue is not just about the interests and concerns of two private organisations. The huge public investment in transport in the area that is due in the next few years, with rail, tram and road links, will be enormous. I have already touched on the economic significance of the area, and that is before we come to the importance of the society's site to the economy and rural life of Scotland.
The motion refers to the economic impact assessment report by Roger Tym and Partners that calculates that the society contributes £100 million to the Lothian economy and £250 million nationally. Not all of that would be lost on any relocation, but Ingliston is the ideal site. That fact must not be lost. The society has looked at other sites, but there are real concerns about their suitability and infrastructure requirements. Those concerns must be addressed. That is why, even at this last moment, a reassessment is needed. I understand that the society will submit further proposals over the summer. I hope that they will get a fair hearing and that there will be co-operation in considering those matters.
Today's debate is an opportunity to register the on-going public interest. I hope that the debate will reflect the various perspectives and strands, and that they will not be lost on the Executive as it reflects on its own accountability in the matter and on its need to reflect on issues that are not just about planning but which also touch on rural, environmental, transport and enterprise issues. The debate is not just about the relocation of a one-week-a-year event: it is about a growing and vibrant enterprise.
We need to be up front and ambitious for what we want for that special part of the economic and enterprise geography of Edinburgh and of Scotland. I note Mary Mulligan's proposed amendment to the motion and I know that other members would be keen to attract a relocated showground to their constituencies, but I hope that, for the most part, the debate will reflect on the national significance and future of two of Scotland's success stories.
With the Executive's co-operation, we can seek a window of opportunity to consider the possible continued co-existence of two of Scotland's success stories. I look forward to hearing speeches from members and, in particular, the Executive's response.
I thank Fiona Hyslop for securing the debate. In many ways it echoes a previous debate that I secured on the expansion of Edinburgh airport. Many of the issues that are raised in the motion came up at that time. I also thank other Lothian MSPs, across all parties, who have spent many months trying to raise genuine concerns about what the ramifications would be of the loss of the showground and the expansion of Edinburgh airport in that particular way.
As the constituency member for Edinburgh West, I have to say that I support both bodies and have done for many years. Both are important to Edinburgh and to Lothian. We have heard about the Roger Tym and Partners report, which the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland produced recently. It shows that the society generates £250 million for Scotland, that it has 1.2 million visitors every year and that it is the second biggest attraction in Scotland. On the other hand, we know that the airport is probably bigger. It attracts more people, more money and so on. It also creates thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly.
Nobody disputes that both bodies are important to our city and to our region and are economically important to Scotland. We seek to get them round the table for one last discussion, at this late hour, to try to find some way in which both those important Edinburgh bodies can co-exist on the Ingliston site.
MSPs have received an open letter from BAA in the past week or so. BAA says that discussions have already taken place. The letter also states that all the options have been reviewed, at some cost to the public purse, and that the society has been involved at every stage. BAA questions the value of doing the same work again, only 18 months after the Government made a decision when the white paper was published.
So what has changed? Why do we seek to return to discussions that BAA states—rightly, to some extent—took place 18 months ago? There are several reasons. First, as Fiona Hyslop says, although the white paper on air transport has come out, it is not legislation and it is not set in stone. It can be, and I believe that it should be, revisited. Secondly, the society has now said that it is prepared to give up a minimum of 100 acres of its 300-acre site to seek a way forward through co-existence. That is very different from the situation that I was involved with when discussions were going on two to three years ago. Thirdly, alternatives have been sought. They have been sought by the Executive, by the society, by West Lothian Council and by the City of Edinburgh Council. Alternatives have been sought, but they have not been found.
Doubt has been raised in many quarters about the passenger figures on which the need for expansion of the airport in this way are based. The figures show an increase from fewer than 8 million passengers now to 20 million by 2030. That is in the face of concerns about oil prices, the falling population figures and the role of Glasgow and Prestwick airports.
There are also commitments from the Executive and I hope, in due course, from the Parliament, to the Edinburgh airport rail link project and the tramline 2 project. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are to go to what? Should they go to the airport alone? There is an argument that we should broaden out the uses of those public transport initiatives. As I said, MSPs across the board have concerns. Whatever it cost us 18 months ago to look at options is but a drop in the ocean compared with the potential cost of relocating the showground.
BAA will not want 300 acres, so who will pay for the parts of the site that it does not want? While that question mark remains and the possibility remains that the money might come from the public purse, each and every one of us has a duty to raise our concerns and to ask the Executive, the Government, the showground and BAA to get back round the table.
The society must do the work and come forward with hard options; BAA must have an open ear to the society's suggestions; the Executive must get into the middle of the matter and address issues to do with transport, agriculture, culture, tourism and the economy. Those are devolved matters. Let us not leave the matter to a decision that was taken some time ago by the Westminster Government; let us get round the table again and consider the matter—even if it is for the last time.
I apologise to members and to the minister, but due to a commitment that I made when I thought that this debate would be held over lunch time, before what Roseanna Cunningham described as the entirely unnecessary disruption to the chamber necessitated the rescheduling of the debate, I will have to leave before the debate concludes.
I thank Fiona Hyslop for securing the debate, Margaret Smith for her speech and all the MSPs who represent the Lothians, who have worked well together to ascertain whether we can enable the airport and the showground to co-exist at Ingliston. There must be recognition of the huge variety of uses of the RHASS centre. Fiona Hyslop highlighted research that has been done on the matter. I did not know that the centre competes with the castle as a visitor attraction in the Lothians. Not just the royal highland show, but all the activities of the centre, bring huge economic benefits to Edinburgh and the Lothians. We should reflect on the benefits of the show.
We should also consider the issues to do with public transport that Margaret Smith set out. I have taken the bus to the centre and it is a good service, but I am pleased that the proposed route for tramline 2 goes to Ingliston and that an airport rail link might be constructed, although I might quibble about the type of link that is proposed. It is great to have that public transport infrastructure, but any new site for the centre would probably not have the benefit of such public transport infrastructure, which would be a huge disappointment.
It is important that we revisit the white paper, "The Future of Air Transport", because a series of assumptions were made in it. For example, it was assumed that aviation fuel prices would stabilise at $25 per barrel in real terms in 2000 prices. Given the current level and unpredictability of oil prices, the likelihood that oil depletion will increasingly be a problem and, most important, the impact of climate change—we should bear in mind that air travel does not pay for its full environmental impact and there is no VAT on airline fuel—the assumptions in the white paper and modelling predictions about Edinburgh airport and flying in general are very open to question.
I do not believe that the predicted increase in the use of Edinburgh airport will be realised. The current usage of the airport presents major problems. According to the airport's website:
"London domestic traffic accounts for 60% of Edinburgh's total traffic figures. There are now over 130 daily flights between Edinburgh and the five London Airports. Edinburgh Airport is now the UK's 2nd busiest airport".
We must consider whether domestic flying is a sustainable transport option. We must revisit the white paper and challenge some of the assumptions that were made. I am afraid that we might move the RHASS centre to a much less appropriate site so that we can develop an expanded airport that ultimately would be a white elephant to the west of Edinburgh because it could not meet future transport needs. We might destroy the centre for nothing.
I have used Edinburgh airport. It is a valuable resource and I do not argue that we should not keep it, but we must question whether the expansion that the white paper predicts will come to fruition. The airport and the centre need to co-exist. I commend the efforts of all parties to achieve that aim and I appreciated the chance to speak in the debate.
I warmly congratulate Fiona Hyslop on lodging an important and timely motion.
BAA and Edinburgh Airport Ltd are to be congratulated on presiding over the airport's unprecedented growth in recent years. The airport has become a successful and vibrant transport hub that brings tremendous benefits to the travelling public throughout Scotland and provides much-needed employment and trade. That is in Scotland's interests, as indeed will be a railway stop at the airport. However, I remain deeply sceptical about the need for a second runway at Edinburgh.
We would have to consider the adverse environmental impact that a second runway could and would have on communities in the Kirkliston area. While I support the continued expansion of the airport, I do not believe that it should be done at the expense of another of Scotland's tremendously important assets, namely the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.
As the motion explains, the society generates many millions of pounds each year for the local and national economies. Perhaps even more important, the royal highland show is the flagship event of the Scottish agricultural year. It plays an invaluable role in promoting farming and agricultural equipment and machinery to countless purchasers and the widest possible audience. The show is a hugely popular event and I view with considerable alarm any insensitive attempts to diminish the national role of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.
The airport and the royal highland show deserve their place in the sun. Any major expansion of the airport would, in addition, have to be weighed against the undoubted importance of maintaining the green belt, to ensure that any sustainable development decisions that meant encroachment on the green belt would be taken only if there was an overriding public interest in doing so.
My final issue concerns the transport arrangements to and from the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland and indeed the airport itself. Members who visited the royal highland show this year will have been reminded of the congested road network that surrounds Ingliston, which causes enormous delays and disruption to visitors and travellers alike. I therefore take this opportunity to press the minister very hard for the long overdue investment that is required to bring infrastructure around Ingliston and the airport up to the highest standards. I hope that he will be able to give a favourable response.
The airport and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland are institutions of which Edinburgh and Scotland can rightly be proud. In considering the future of both bodies, let us ensure that the long-term well-being and sustainability of both institutions is safeguarded and that every effort is made to produce a meeting of minds. I support the motion.
I congratulate Fiona Hyslop on securing the debate. As she and other members have said, it is an important issue that is deserving of our time. However, given the amendment that I proposed to her motion, she will appreciate that I do not agree totally with her conclusions.
I have not spent the past six years wondering how I could entice the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland's headquarters from Ingliston to my constituency. I have discussed the issue on several occasions with Margaret Smith, the local MSP, and I also discussed it recently with representatives of the society, whom I told quite clearly that if the showground is to stay where it is, I will not be unhappy. However, if it is to move, I firmly believe that West Lothian can offer a superb location.
I acknowledge the achievements and benefits of the society over the years, and I acknowledge the wonderful event that is the royal highland show. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose the work on developing that show and the other conferences and exhibitions to which members have referred that take place at Ingliston. I appreciate the boost that they give to Edinburgh's economy, but we should not fool ourselves: Edinburgh's economy will not collapse if the society chooses to move. The white paper says that Edinburgh airport will grow and need land that is presently used by the society, and there still seems to be some debate as to whether BAA and the society could continue to share the site. If it has not already done so, the time for that debate will quickly come to a conclusion.
We seem to be avoiding the discussion that needs to be had, which is about how many of us know that the ideas that are being mooted for the area around the airport are for attracting more international headquarters, such as those of the Royal Bank of Scotland, to which Fiona Hyslop referred. I suggest that such developments would be better placed to sustain the Edinburgh economy and, by extension, the Scottish economy, especially the economies of Fife, West Lothian and other Lothian and Borders areas.
I will briefly mention why there would be advantages to the society's coming to West Lothian. The area has all the attributes that the society needs for its relocation: sufficient land, good transport links and a great position within Scotland from which to attract visitors from throughout the country. There is a site between Whitburn and Armadale that would provide a great location not only for the society's present needs, but for future growth, but there are not many such sites throughout the country. The transport links there are good, too: the M8, the M9 and the new Airdrie to Bathgate rail link, about which I am sure the minister knows, are nearby.
The final advantage is that the society would remain within the central belt. I appreciate that members from rural areas might think that it should go to such an area, but the society's being in the central belt seems to have its advantages. I acknowledge that upheaval will be caused by any move from Ingliston and I am sure that the people who work there are uncertain about their employment prospects; however, those worries could be somewhat relieved by a short move along the motorway.
Although the society might not want to move, it needs to consider the reality of the situation. Like other sites, the site in West Lothian will not be available for ever. I hope that, if the society moves, it will see all the advantages of coming to West Lothian, which could be a win-win situation. I can assure the society of a warm welcome from my constituents and me.
I thank my colleague Fiona Hyslop for initiating the debate and, indeed, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland because, as Fiona Hyslop and others have testified, the royal highland showground and those who work there are part of the landscape and life of the city of Edinburgh. They contribute to the city's economy and its social interaction, and have done so for many years.
That said, there are clearly difficulties. We face a difficulty with Edinburgh airport's expansion and we must bear in mind its importance to our economy. Mark Ballard made points about the likely implications of expansion. Everybody accepts that, in a fossil-fuel using world, limits will be put on the growth of air transport, but it is clear that for the foreseeable future Edinburgh airport will expand. I understand that, only today, it has been announced that a route to Warsaw will commence in October. That should benefit us not only by allowing outbound business, but by bringing inbound fresh talent such as is currently proliferating in Edinburgh. We have to balance conflicting needs and wants.
We must also acknowledge that the west of Edinburgh, where the showground and airport are located, is fundamental not only to the city of Edinburgh but to the whole economy of Scotland. That area is currently the dynamo of the Scottish economy, so if we undermine it, not only will we imperil the advance of Edinburgh's economic interest, we will undermine the interests of the whole of Scotland. I believe that some of the land-bank opportunities that exist there are as important to Edinburgh and Scotland as the Dublin dockland development was to Dublin and the Republic of Ireland in providing impetus and driving things forward.
Fiona Hyslop mentioned the Royal Bank of Scotland. The debate cannot be thought of as an argument or battle between the RHASS and BAA. It is, in fact, much wider than that because, as the area includes land that has potential for development, we must consider alternative options. It might be that the dispute can be resolved simply by ceding land from the royal highland showground to the airport but, irrespective of that, it is likely that land opposite the Royal Bank of Scotland's current location will be developed, so we must consider the area in its totality. In doing that, we must acknowledge that it is not simply a case of BAA versus the RHASS; we must factor in the RBS and other businesses that we hope to attract to sites in that area, and we must consider how the RHASS operates within that.
There is a variety of permutations. Mary Mulligan mentioned the opportunity for the RHASS to move out to West Lothian, and Margaret Smith and Fiona Hyslop commented that we might be able to reach agreement simply by ceding ground to BAA, although that is currently disputed.
It has been suggested that ground is available on the other side of the A8 from where the RHASS is currently. We have the opportunity of freeing up land for the airport, of maintaining the highland showground in its current vicinity, and perhaps of maintaining some green space. James Douglas-Hamilton rightly said that we want economic development and benefits, but that we also want to retain green space to avoid Edinburgh and Glasgow becoming one continuous conurbation.
We must not view the matter simply as BAA versus RHASS. The Executive has a role not simply in arbitrating in that dispute but in recognising the implications for Scotland's economy and society. The Executive must become involved; it cannot simply leave matters to the current participants or to the City of Edinburgh Council.
I must declare an interest: I am still a sheep and cattle farmer and have enjoyed the annual royal highland show for a great many years. I come at this debate from a distinctly rural angle.
The royal highland show is of enormous importance to people in rural Scotland and to the agricultural industry. That is not just because it offers a showcase for Scotland's livestock and machinery from Gretna to Shetland, but because it is held in Scotland's capital city of Edinburgh. Having the show in Edinburgh stresses the great importance to Scotland as a whole not only of farming but of the rest of the rural economy.
Anyone who has been in the food tents at the royal highland show will have witnessed the huge expansion in local food products; there is the best meat, the best fish and the best shellfish in Europe. Edinburgh can produce the largest attendance figures and the perfect stage. It is therefore immensely important as the venue for what is an exceptional Scottish event.
Many Scots come to their capital only once a year, and that is for the royal highland show. A move to a lesser site would almost certainly lessen the impact of the royal highland show and might do away with an event at which urban Scotland meets and comes to terms with rural Scotland, and vice versa.
I agree with Fiona Hyslop's motion and with the sentiments that were ably expressed by Kenny MacAskill and—even more ably—by my friend James Douglas-Hamilton. James hopes for a meeting of minds to ensure that Ingliston is never lost to the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.
I thank Fiona Hyslop for securing the debate. I will make some remarks—but with trepidation as I am an out-of-Edinburgh and out-of-Lothians member. The powers of the Scottish Executive to plan the environment are increasing and there is legislation on planning that ought to lead to a rapid updating of local plans.
Environmental and economic issues are raised by the debate. We are just about to reach stage 2 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill. A proposal by HM Government in London would not fall within the mischief—as Ross Finnie keeps calling it—of our bill, but would fall within the mischief of the UK regulations. However, a proposal for a major expansion of an airport ought to be subject to strategic environmental assessment. It will be interesting to find out whether the UK Government intends to have such an assessment and what input the Scottish Executive will have. An environmental assessment would open up the debate about the balanced use of a particular area.
On the economic front, the local plan is some years old and it is not especially clear on the implications for land use and transport in the Ingliston area. If we are to get the future right, we will have to have plans that are dynamic enough to deal with proposals such as the expansion of Edinburgh airport. That expansion has been talked of for a considerable time, but the expansion has to be accommodated within the land concerned.
The Executive therefore has a major role to play. It is necessary to send some signals. First, the showcase for Scottish agriculture and country life cannot be placed in jeopardy. We are reducing our capacity to grow the food that we require, but that capacity will have to be increased, because the number of food miles must be reduced in future. The Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland's show highlights the potential of our farmers and crofters to achieve that for Scotland and it is important that it is held as near to the capital as possible.
We must ensure that heads are knocked together. Who is going to do that? BAA says that the discussions are finished, but someone has to hold the jackets and get the parties together. The Scottish Executive could play a major role in resolving the impasse. Examining the environmental and economic levers and planning mechanisms would be a good way of trying to bring some sense to the situation.
It is essential that our economy goes forward using the best of everything. High tech is important. The future of our nation centres on the knowledge economy and what can be built round the hub of the west Edinburgh area, but we have to eat, which requires us to commit to the great showcase so that it is not lost. Its site cannot be moved, but it could be altered. That compromise is possible if the Executive takes a hold now.
I begin by indulging myself and thanking all members who have congratulated me on my recent appointment. I had not appreciated how popular the minister for transport would be, at least at the beginning. More seriously, I thank Fiona Hyslop for introducing a genuinely thoughtful debate this evening as we wind up for the school summer break.
I have connections to both institutions that we have discussed at length this evening. For many years I have attended the institution of the royal highland show, although I did not recognise Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point about a day in the sun—a day in inclement conditions might be a better description. I acknowledge the point that many colleagues made about the importance of the show not just to this part of Scotland but to Scotland as a whole. The other institution is the capital's airport, which is a set of buildings and a runway of which I see rather a lot. Indeed, at times I think that I know nothing else than the security queue at Edinburgh airport.
I acknowledge the speeches that have been made this evening about the continuing discussions on the future of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland's showground. Members recognise the economic contributions that the showground and the airport make to the wider Scottish economy. We wish to preserve and increase the economic benefits of both. I urge all parties to act constructively to ensure that a solution is reached that ensures the showground's long-term future and takes account of the predicted growth of Edinburgh airport.
As others have said, the UK Government's air transport white paper set out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the UK for the next 30 years. It set out the conclusions of the UK Government on the case for the expansion of airports throughout the country. In doing so, it took account of the views that were expressed in an extensive consultation exercise, which in Scotland was conducted jointly by the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive. It recognised that simply building more and more capacity to meet demand was not a sustainable way forward—a balanced approach is necessary. We need an approach that recognises the importance of air travel to our economic prosperity—not least the point that Kenny MacAskill made about today's news—but which respects the rights and interests of those who, as Lord James rightly said, are affected by airport development.
In the white paper, the UK Government invited airport operators to produce plans for increased airport capacity in the light of the policies and conclusions that were set out therein. BAA Scotland produced its outline master plan for Edinburgh airport in May. It is now out for consultation with a closing date of 31 August 2005. The master plan highlights the need to cater for the predicted growth of the airport. I take the point that Margaret Smith made about the overall scale of the area that we have discussed this evening. The plan sets out that 34 hectares of the land that is occupied by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland would be required by 2020 for additional terminal and airport apron capacity and that another 51 hectares of the land that is occupied by the society will be needed by 2030 for further development of the airport.
The minister has outlined the extent of the showground area that BAA might need. Will he pick up on my point about the potential for the public purse to pay for the area that is not required by BAA but which is so reduced in size that the viability of the showground is damaged? Someone will have to pay for that.
The point fits neatly with one that a number of members made in their speeches this evening—indeed Margaret Smith made it herself. Given the economic potential of the area for corporate headquarters and other developments, it strikes me that land in the area would be at a premium.
I am well aware that the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society believes that it should remain on its present site at Ingliston while still allowing for the expansion of the airport. As part of the preparation for the UK Government's white paper, much work was carried out to assess the future growth and development of Edinburgh airport. The work included a study to assess and attempt to reconcile the likely land needs of BAA Scotland and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society, both of which were represented on the steering group for the study.
As members have said this evening, many options were considered but no solution has yet been found. Accordingly, the white paper set out the issues and concluded that the UK Government's proposals
"would therefore require the relocation of the RHASS, by around 2013".
Following the publication of the white paper, the Deputy Minister for Communities announced that the west Edinburgh planning framework would be reviewed. I hope that that review addresses some of the wider points that Margaret Smith, Kenny MacAskill and other members made about the area.
I fully recognise the special status of the royal highland centre as a well-located, year-round indoor and outdoor events venue—a point that Fiona Hyslop made extremely well. That is why the Scottish Executive is working with the society and other parties in the review of the west Edinburgh planning framework. The objectives of the review include a reconciliation of the land requirements of the airport with other land uses and consideration of the implications for the royal highland centre in particular.
A study has therefore been undertaken to identify one or more alternative site options west of Edinburgh or elsewhere for potential relocation. The research used criteria that were based on criteria that the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society provided. The research is now concluded and, from a long list of sites, four potential sites have been identified and ranked. It is now for the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society to undertake further investigative work into one or more of those sites and to determine their feasibility.
The society has been fully involved throughout the extensive white paper consultation process and the subsequent review of the west Edinburgh planning framework. It has been given every opportunity to demonstrate how the showground can co-exist with the airport while providing for the predicted growth of the airport.
However, I also recognise that, before closing off the option of co-existence, the society has sought the opportunity to respond to the BAA master plan consultation. I can only therefore urge the society to continue to engage actively with BAA Scotland and the Scottish Executive to find a solution that satisfies all parties and that ensures that the activities of the society and the airport continue to grow their contribution to the economy of south-east Scotland and Scotland as a whole.
Meeting closed at 18:49.