As I see it, we need to question this in relation to prioritising spending on the areas of greatest need for children.
The reason given for paying for children under 12 to attend the show is to encourage them to consider a career in agriculture.
I question how many children of that age are making a career choice based on a visit to the Royal Show and does this justify the huge cost involved?
Only children whose parents take them to the show benefit from this cost, so the impact is limited to those lucky ones.
Where is the greatest need for children?
I feel education rates a lot higher than free entry to the Royal Show.