 Fy nw. Fy nw i g Feelgwyrdd! Mae ffordd eich mynd i этого a hyllaf, Fy rodymiio'n cymaintrach yng Nghymru'i gael, a'u ddweud rhoi cynfieinol yn cyffredigig gyntaf yn eu gweldol i gyd, dwi'n ei ddweud. Yr eich cyflifiad ynddeg iaith yng Llywodraeth yn bwysigol iaith. Yr eich cyflifiad yng Nghymru, mae'n eu gweldol i'r tîm Yn Pryfyd, mae'r strifent yn gwybodol i gwybodol iaith iaith. The next item is an evidence session on Glasgow Press week airport, which is an opportunity to discuss the operation and management of the airport, the Scottish Government's ownership and progress to ours as state of the day. The cabinet secretary wrote to the committee in September on an update on an expression of interest to purchase Scottish ministers' interests in the airport. We'll hear evidence over two panels this morning and firstly I'd like to welcome Iain Forgyu, chief executive officer and for Sceithblac, non executive chairman Glasgow Prestwick Airport. Afterward the committee will then take evidence from the cabinet secretary for wellbeing economy, fair work and energy. I understand that Sceithblac is going to make a short opening statement I would invite you to do so now. I thank you. My name is Versaith Black, a non-execute chair here at Glasgow Presswick Airport. With me is Ian Borgey, chief executive officer. We are pleased to be able to join you remotely from the airport today. Short notice, meaning our board commitments today, got made it unable to attend in person. It is a pleasure to be able to attend online. When the Scottish Government took Glasgow Presswick Airport over in 2013 it was undoubtedly a neu ychydigodd yr unig yr unig yn yr hyngyngor i'u hanes â llwyddi ond yn dangos gyfyng ychydig. Felly ond, y cais gweithio ar y llwyddiant ac yny'r gwyfo na'n meddwl chi yn y comisi, yn y gallu 5 yr ymlaen, felly mae'n gwneud osion ei meddwl hynny'n griffyn Hyfforddol, yn gweithio mae'r canig o'r arliodd yma, yn yn enthylcholol yr hun bod y c distresso ar yr unig. ffordd ac yn ddiwg i'r bywch yn gweithio'r bywch yn ddiwrnod. Mae'r bywch hwn yn ffordd ac y bywch yn ddiwrnod yn bwysigol, ond byddwn yn gweithio'r bywch yn ddiwrnod yn ddiwrnod. Mae'r bywch yn ddiwrnod yn fawr sydd gyfnodiaeth yn ddiwrnod cyffredinol i'r ddymian, ac rwyf yn fawr yn ddiwrnod i'w argynno hwn oed yn ddiwrnod ac yn dwi'n ddylch yn ddwylo'r bywch yn ddiwrnod gan yr ymddangosol bobl honno y cyflwr. Ddiolch i wych yn cymhagol ar y cyflwr, oeddiad y ffocwsiol ac oeddiad ar gyfer cyflwrs, ar gyfer cyflwrs. Mae cyflwrs yn gwneud eu traffu ar gyfer cyflwrs amser i wneud yr athgor i wych yn gallu siwrr ac oeddiad ar gyflwrs acrossi Scotland i gyflwrs, ac mae bod ni'n credu o sechydig o ddweud o'r cyflwr. Mae unig yn ddigwyddio os ydych yn argyrchon, oeddiad fan hyn ac yn cael ei wneud. Ein cydydig yn gynghagorol, fel y cyd-rych gyda'r cyd-rych yn ddeg-grifesigol o'r cyd-rych yn mawr yma gyd-wch chi'n cyfanolol i gynyddu i Ffraith Cwyd-Fraith Yn Llywodraeth Cymrydau, ond mae'r cyd-rhyw wedi yn gyllwyn niolion gallu byw i'r cyd-rhyw mwyiant sydd yn gyfennidol cynfer o'r cyd-rhyw i'n cyd-rhyw mwy ddeg-rhyw mewn cyd-rych. â'r cyntaf o'r cyngor, ac yn ymweld i'r teimlo i ddim ni'n gweithio a gael eich defnyddio i gael o'r ffasilydd. Mae'r cyngor yn sefydliadol i'r perthynos ar gyfer amser, ac mae'r cyngor yn ysgrifennu 24x7 argyrchu. A oes yr airport hefyd yn yngylcheddol i'r cyfrifiadol i'r cyfrifiadol yn dylai gynhywgol, ac mae'r cyfrifiadol sy'n argyrchu ar gyfer gafodd i'r cyfrifiadol yn gweithio i gyrdd i'r cyfrifiadol. passenger numbers is substantially up over the previous year. We're pleased to confirm a new five-year agreement with our key passenger airline, Ryanair, and we look forward to working with them to grow passenger numbers further in the future. The airport remains an important base for Ryanair with maintenance repair and overhaul facility on site employing approximately 600 people. We continue to provide excellent service to our military customers with many nations operating aircraft through the airport, most notably the UK REF, USAF and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The airport has a reputation for hosting and supporting key training events and in recent months we had a significant NATO training exercise here flown over Germany and was delivered with credit to our staff who delivered excellent operational service. Achieving a horizontal space port facility has been an ambition of the airport for a number of years. It's a complex and specialised operation with high barriers to entry and we continue to work closely with South Asia Council, Scottish Enterprise and our potential launch partner to make this a reality. We continue to invest in upgrade our buildings and equipment and are developing a fresh master plan to maximise the utilisation of our 880 acre site, taking practical action to achieve net zero targets as a key objective for the board and we're pleased with the progress being made since our reference point in 2018. We believe we're well in our way to achieving our target of 50% carbon reduction by 2030. Recently we've undertaken more fabric first projects and made good progress with plans to invest in roof and ground mounted solar energy with the aim to become self-sufficient electricity over the next three years. We're also working on supporting the market shift to sustainable aviation fuel to establish the airport as a piece of pipeline for Scotland. Overall the airport returns an operating profit £2.1 million in its latest set of accounts with we believe more to come in the future. Despite the ongoing economic pressures the board is confident the airport will be able to build on this excellent recent performance. Scottish ministers stated objectives remain to return Glasgow Presswick Airport to private ownership when the time and circumstances are right to do so and when a sale will provide the best possible return on their investment in the strategic asset. Until a credible and experienced investor comes forward the board will continue to focus on growing the business and increasing its value. We'd like to thank our customers and our dedicated loyal employees for their passion and commitment to presswick airport and look forward to the continued success in the future. In closing you will appreciate that this is a public forum and it's a commercial entity. There are some things we really can't discuss openly but we'd be delighted to invite members of the committee with an interest in Glasgow Presswick Airport to come and see firsthand what a fantastic asset it is for Scotland. That concludes our opening statements so we can now take questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. As you say there's quite a few questions for you. Let me start off with just a sort of general question. What is the current strategy for the airport and how do you assess performance against that so far? The current strategy for the airport is more diverse as I said in my opening statement than one might think. This is not naturally a passenger airport. We have a smaller passenger catchment area than some of the bigger airports nearby. What we are is a diverse airport of passenger, cargo, military, private flights, fueling. We've got certain rescue facilities and a military base on our site and the strategy is to take each of those business lines and maximise them to the best we possibly can because having a number of different business lines producing contribution at an operating level adds to the total which offsets the cost of the infrastructure in the centre. As you say, you're looking at very diverse businesses there. Each one in its own way is a speciality. Can Prestwick Airport be a specialist in so many diverse areas? I think that's the life of what I'm describing as a tertiary airport. If we were London Heathrow Airport we'd be all about passengers and very little about cargo and even less about anything else. That's what we've got to be. We've got to be a master of as many things as we can. That doesn't mean that everything is given equal priority. At the moment, our strategy is very much that cargo is the priority. Passenger is very much a secondary thing. We wouldn't want to live without it but it's a secondary thing. Looking after what we call FBO, fixed space operations flights, which include private jets, charters and military flights, is up there, is up there as well, very near Carnival. The point is that we've got to concentrate on a number of things, not all of them equally, and we've got to dial that up and down as the market changes round about us. Thank you. Maybe I can call Kevin Stewart. Thank you very much, convener. In terms of those military operations and planning, how reliant have the revenues been linked to those military operations and planning, and how can you effectively plan with this revenue stream being uncertain? Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, convener. Thank you for getting this morning. Before I ask the question, just reflecting back five years ago, when I first appeared for the Rec Committee as it was, the airport has changed significantly in the air. What a fantastic asset it is, and when we first ate five years ago, the main focus was on passengers, that was the main revenue stream, but as soon as we got into turning around the business and made it grow and diversify, we identified many strengths and the ability to handle international air forces has been one of its strengths. For many years, we'll be over 100 years old next year and the airport has always had a strong connection with the military, so it's not something that comes and goes, it's something that's been built up over recent years. We handle over 20 air forces, international air forces. Why did they come to Scotland? Why did they come to Presswick? Well, it's 24-7. It's got two long wrongways, lots of parking, naping space, and an excellent service. It's a great part of a business and it's something we continue to work on. I think in terms of how we plan for that sort of thing, what we do is we look at individual events that we know are going to come up, like the recent NATO exercise and we plan for those because they're a known thing. We look at the world around about this, so things like conflict in Ukraine has driven military traffic and we know from experience that that is something we need to then set aside resource for, but also there's a long-term historical trend. As Ian says, international military's have been coming through Presswick since the Second World War or even before that and we've got a long, long history of how that's progressed over the years, so there is an averaging effect that you can take into account when you're planning. To be quite frank, over the years that has just become better and better and better with experience in terms of accuracy of that planning. I don't think you've got the nub of the question in terms of your answers there. What are the alternatives for these airforces other than Presswick? So why Presswick? Well that's exactly what Ian was just referring to there. In terms of the long runway, we've got the longest runway north of Manchester. A lot of these long-haul heavy military targu aircraft, particularly from the American military and the Canadian military, they can technically land at other airports in Scotland, but can they take off fully fuelled and fully laden? I would suggest not. In terms of this part of the world, where we're in a great circle for transatlantic flights, we aren't the only game in town, but we're the most appropriate game in town. There have been some controversies over the years around about some of the flights coming into and leaving Presswick, not just Presswick, but Aberdeen and my own patch. Flights that have been suggested have been used for extraordinary rendition. How does Presswick Airport ensure that there is no breaking of international law and that the airport is not profiting from such? All military aircraft that come into the UK have to be authorised by the UK Government, so it's only, for example, Russian aircraft that are banned currently. However, it's a Government-led authorisation for aircraft to land into any airport in the UK. We don't get involved with renditioning flights, that's just not what we do. You are categoric that there have been no extraordinary rendition flights entering Presswick, unless, of course, they have been cleared by the UK Government. Is that what you're saying? What we're saying is that every flight is cleared by the UK Government. We cannot be categoric on what happens on those flights because it's confidential, often, to the operator. The doors on some aircraft are not opened when they come through here. What goes on on board is not something that we are sometimes partitive, but what we are partitive is the legality of those flights. Extraordinary rendition is illegal under international law. Therefore, I presume that the UK Government would not allow it to happen, and therefore, if we would not handle it, and therefore, by extension, we would never handle it. Okay, that's grand, so that would be the UK Government's responsibility there. Let's turn to your ambitions for a spaceport. The annual accounts note that achieving a horizontal spaceport has been an ambition for a number of years. What are the benefits of securing this for the airport? What progress have you made over the past number of years? What are the main barriers that you need to overcome? What analysis have you done of the competition—a lot of competition, even here in Scotland—about leading in terms of spaceport flights? Yes, spaceport and, as we have said, our accounts have been a long-held objective. It is a complex and specialised market, and as we have seen in the UK, the failure in the UK can have disastrous results. It is not something anyone enters into lightly, and it is very important that you get the right technical partner who is going to operate it, and to be clear, it is the partner who is going to operate the flights. We are the airport that is hosting the facilities and responsible for the safety and security of the aircraft, and its contents are leaving Scotland and out of the airspace. That is our responsibility. The technical handling and marketing and generation of payload for satellites is responsible for the operator or the partner that we are having discussions with. It is complex that the bias to entry is high, and we are working closely with this partner and the space industry and the regulator to make this a reality. It is not a short game, it is a long game in this. We are quite encouraged recently in terms of the investor funding that the partner has raised in recent months, and we are working closely with the council and the Scottish Enterprise to make that a reality. You have not really talked about what the barriers are. What are the barriers, and how can they be overcome? The barriers are the technical barriers. You need to have a solution that is safe, a solution that this has got rocket fuel in it, it has got capacity to take off, it needs to point and shoot and release its content safely into the airspace. The biggest barrier is licensing. That is a highly complex area in which the CEO requires to issue licenses for. That is the main technical complication. Space Sport is a physical building. Our part of that is making sure that it is safe and secure with fuel storage facilities and making sure that that is safe to issues. There is a lot of technical stuff that goes on in the background. In my previous role, I have met the Civil Aviation Authority around some of those issues. Can you tell us a little bit about your discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority around the licensing aspect and ensuring that the safety aspect is there if and when you become a space port? We have engaged with our licensing application. We have just recently put our application in and our technical team is building our safety case, which we then present to the CAA. It is not a, the CEO will come and tell you what to do. We have to present our safety case and then they approve that and grant the licence. Okay, thank you convener. Thank you. Bring in Brian Whittle followed by Erwin Tweed. Thank you, convener. Good morning, gentlemen, and I declare a life law interest in Presbyty Airport from the start. Given I used to live in Moncton and I am old enough to have joined the crowds in the football field across from my house to watch the inaugural flight of Concord in 1969, and that is how old I am, I am afraid. Gentlemen, I wanted to use my time really to look at the airport's income streams beyond flight operations, in particular agreements with wind farm developers for mitigation payments. You will be aware of a report from Clockery and Sankar findings, and it seems to having read that report that the airport's approach to negotiating mitigation settlements with wind farms has been challenged. There are a number of recent planning inquiries for these developments, and from comments made by wind farm developers and reporters, I think it's reasonable to say that your approach is more aggressive than is the norm, and in particular you've sought to receive on-going payments beyond an initial lump sum, you've sought to receive payments based on the number of megawatts generated and perhaps, I think, most worryingly you've taken an approach that used non-disclosure agreements to conceal the value of payments and prevent public scrutiny. Is that, and I'm taking that straight from the report, do you feel that's an accurate description of the approach you've taken with wind farms? There's an on-going public inquiry, I can't comment in specifics regarding wind farms. However, wind farms have a significant impact on airports, in particular Freswick, and we encourage you, Brian, when you do come down and see the visit to the airport, we will show you some detail of that. We are the highest concentration of developments planned in the UK, if not Europe, with over 700 turbines visible to the airport, and there's an entire wall of them at the top end of our wind farm. It's a complex and technical area, which we must be satisfied, absolutely satisfied as an impact on the airport's safety. That's a paramount. Developers need to contribute to that, but that's the bottom where they need to pay for this, not to be mitigated. They need to pay for that, and that's the fundamental. I have also to say that, to date, the airport has supported over one gigawatts of wind farm applications. We have really been pushing hard to meet these things happen, and that's part of that, a whole agenda from pushing out wind farms. It's a complex subject, but I do encourage you to come down and take you through some of the detail, because until you understand the technical detail and the problem that is with aviation is not just Freswick, although Freswick has the biggest concentration because of its location. It's a significant issue of the airport that we need to defend. Just so you know, I spoke to Nats last week specifically, so as I understood, I've also spoken to wind farm developers. I'm talking about clockry and sancar. I know there's other on-going public enquiries into this, but I'm talking specifically about clockry and sancar, and these things are in the public domain. If I can quote from the clockry report, the minister's response to this agreed with the reporter's conclusion that there's no basis for on-going compensatory payments to be made. My concern here is that you are using wind farm money specifically. I'm sorry, don't shake your head, Mr Foggy. That's what it says in the report. It says it in the report that you're using wind farms as an income stream. It also says in here that you have to demonstratively show how you're using that money specifically to mitigate any issues with wind farms. That's what the report says, so would you not agree that if that's the case and that these things are sitting within your ledger, they will have to come out, so that will impact the profitability of the airport? I disagree with all that. It says it in the public inquiry report. It can't disagree with the reporter and the minister. There's an on-going public inquiry and I cannot comment particularly about any particular enquiries that are connected to that. However, there's a significant impact on this airport and it will cost its significant money in the next 25-30 years to ensure that there's the safety impact caused by these wind farms. I think it's worth just stepping back a second to just explain that you've also got specific knowledge in this matter, maybe some of the members of the committee do not. The issue here is the press because Ian says has a significant number of wind turbines within his radar picture. When aircraft cross those wind turbines, there is a risk that the radar goes blind and we need to upgrade our radar to be at the very top of the range at some vast expense to be able to mitigate that and ensure that our approach into our airport is safe. That situation is only caused, solely caused by the building of wind farms in our radar picture and we have to mitigate against that. That's why they're called mitigation agreements. The wind farm operators know this. They build these mitigation costs into their business models because they know that in due course they're going to have to make a contribution to the airport, us or another airport, to mitigate the effect of those wind farms. They build those amounts into their business models and, in some cases, they try to make the case not to pay them. Ultimately, if they don't pay them, because the Scottish Government owns Glasgow Press we care for, ultimately it's up to us and therefore by extension the Scottish taxpayer to pay for the amounts that are already budgeted by the wind farm operators. It doesn't really make sense, does it? I'm afraid that the evidence that I've taken from that is disagree with that. You have a thermal radar system that is currently in the processing understand of potentially being deployed. Have they spoken to the wind farms themselves? They are absolutely agreed that they do have to pay some mitigation but that has to be demonstrated by the airport, which they say hasn't been done. Secondly, as I said, the report says that there is no basis for on-going compensatory payments to be made. That is a quote directly from the Cabinet Secretary. If I'll also say that the reporter says that it is clear that a per megawatt basis for the calculation of any contribution would not be appropriate. I understand that there are more on-going findings coming down the road, but that is from Clocry and Sankar. I think that what's important here is that there's an agreement that they should mitigate. There should be a CAPEX payment for any upgrade or replacement of a radar system. There's an agreement with that, but the report is saying that you haven't quantified that. What you're trying to do is get on-going payments out of wind farms to pay for a radar system that's not in operation and the wind farms are up and the airport is still functioning. Again, I'm saying to you that this is being used as an income stream. That's what the report says. Well, there's definitely an income stream out of it, but there's a very large cost line that goes with that. You can demonstrate. Everything that's coming out from the wind farm payments is being ring-fen specifically to pay for an upgrade of radar. This is a complex subject, and I encourage you to come down. I have tried twice, Mr Forgey. I'm asking a simple question here. Is the money coming out of the wind farm that's been to mitigate any issue with radar being ring-fen specifically to upgrade your radar? That's all I'm asking you. Well, one of the problems is why you do need to understand more detail. You do have to understand that. This is a complex subject. It's an evolving subject, and we have significant 700 visible turbines that are being planned to be rebuilt. This is not our one-wind farm issue that's just put in the box. This is evolving over there, and I have evolved over the last five years and it's got to the stage now. This is significant. We need to look for the next 25 or 30 years and what that's going to impact the airport is going to be. I do encourage you to spend more time listening to the airport to understand that position, which, obviously, will be a vested interest in protecting and making sure that local issues grow and survive. This is a really, really important matter. I encourage you to spend some more time with that. I'm happy to do that, but I will again say to you that I specifically spent some time with NACS last week to understand exactly from their perspective what is required from a radar system. It's not just impressive, of course. It's a network of radar systems across Scotland. Yes, but Chris Wheat is the biggest one that's impacted. I'm just going to ask you a simple question again. Is the money, the revenues that are coming out of the wind farms being ring-fen specific for mitigation and not for any other measures? That's what I'm asking you. There's been so far as it's been spent on radars, but the radar technology that's now going to be required is significant going forward. That's a moving feast. As this has grown bigger and bigger, we need to build more radars, not just one solution, so it is far more complex going forward. If I may, just one more thing. One of the things that I had heard was that there was a runway report in 2019. Presumably, you're aware of that. What's the runway? What has been? Well, there's issues in terms of when somebody applies to buy the airport or to purchase the airport, you would do a report, and that would include a runway report in 2019. Is that correct? There was no runway report issues by that sale process. So you wouldn't put a runway report into a purchase? No, it would be diligence that's required by the buyer. If the customer is buying it, we ask for that, but it didn't happen in that case. I think that Colin Smyth wants to come in on that question. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning, gentlemen. Can I just follow up on the issue of the wind farm developments? I appreciate that you disagree with the comments of the reporter in the case of the wind farm near Sankar, but presumably that does have an impact on your future business. You must be building in when it comes to future assumptions of income streams from developments that wind farm companies will follow what the reporter said in his comments, and those future agreements will be less than the ones that you've secured at the moment. Has that been built into your future planning, and what impact is that likely to have on your income? Well, again, I had to say that this is linked to this current public inquiry that's about to a couple of public inquiries coming up, so I want to come out quite fortunate in the new year, and the significant new evidence coming into that, connected to that, so it's an ongoing position as far as we're concerned. Yes, clearly, if you took that at Black and White, that would have a significant impact on us, and we're concerned, but we believe we've got the evidence to show, and that's why I'm referring back to the next public inquiry, evidence to show that this is a big problem and it needs to be funded. But I think it's fair to say that the decision of the public inquiry just gone by does not affect, it doesn't have an effect on the public inquiries in the future. It is a specific outcome based on that public inquiry in isolation. It doesn't mean that mitigation payments will stop in future. It means they may be restructured or changed in some way, and therefore we do think we can cut our cloth to match that. Can you bring in Evelyn Tweed, followed by Gordon MacDonald? Thanks, convener. Good morning, gentlemen. Your most recent annual accounts note that few amounts to the vast majority of the airport's revenues. What do you think the outlook is for the segment? Well, aircraft that come in need to be fuel. It's the inevitability of running an airport, but there is an industry-wide, an airline industry-wide move towards things like sustainable aviation fuel. We've recently reorganised our deal with our fuel supplier here, who also manages and runs and takes some responsibility for upkeep of our fuel farm, where we've got, I think, seven tanks, five tanks, seven tanks, and recently we've refurbished them with the purpose of getting ourselves to a capacity that we can actually start to dedicate in the near-term future, dedicate at least one tank to sustainable aviation fuel. We have a railway siding here that allows us to take fuel from the refineries by rail, which is kind of unique in Scotland. It may be even unique in Britain. As a result, we're able to take deliveries in bulk quite quickly, so there is a plan of food to start to dedicate at least one of those tanks in the beginning to sustainable aviation fuel so that we can become a key point for distribution of sustainable aviation fuel for Scotland until the market gets to a critical mass, where each airport individually will have the bulk of its fuel stored as sustainable aviation fuel. Okay, thanks for that. You've spoken a lot about diversification, but in terms of passengers and cargo, they obviously make up quite a bit less in terms of your revenue. You said earlier on about the five-year new agreement with Ryanair. I mean, how do you see passengers? Is that going to be something that's getting bigger? You had said earlier on that that's what the airport used to focus on. Obviously, Scotland is interested in expanding its tourism offering. Is that going to expand? And where do you see cargo going? So passenger will expand. I mean, if you think back the history of Creswick airport, it was a big passenger airport partly because aviation technology didn't allow long-haul aircraft for America to be all the way to Heathrow in one jump. Those days have gone. Now you can fly across the world, happily across the world in one jump without stopping. So therefore, Creswick lost that market, but a lot of the passengers in those days were not really terminating or originating passengers. They were through passengers. What we've got now is a much more pure passenger model where the people coming in out of Creswick are originating and departing Creswick. So they're outbound their tourism to the others, to somewhere in Europe usually, or business people and inbound their business people and their inbound tourism for the golfing in South Ayrshire, the countryside in South Ayrshire, that sort of thing. So we do end up with a smaller base passenger and it will expand. We've just recently had three Ryanair routes launched through the summer after a new deal. One of them hasn't done as well as it could have done. It's been cut for now. We're expecting a little bit of winter activity from Ryanair that we didn't have last year and we're expecting them to do even more routes next year as part of our new deal. So we do see it expanding. We talk from time to time to other passenger-based aircraft airlines. They're not our vast focus because we know that we've got to focus more heavily on things like parable and military at the moment, but because we've got a limited catchment area and the vast amount of the west of Scotland passengers go through Glasgow International. It doesn't mean that there isn't a market for Prestwick. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we have to play on the margins and we catch that the business is sort of between the cracks in some ways. Okay, that's good to know that it's expanding. Prestwick Aerospace currently provides a range of modern apprenticeships in collaboration with Ayrshire College and South Ayrshire Council. Where do you see this offering going? Is this going to expand? Indeed. One of our, obviously, aeronautical engineering is a strength for the Prestwick Airport. We've got the Prestwick Airport maintenance, which is Ryanair, and Chevron teamed them, I think, over 600, 700 jobs and they want to expand. And it's an issue that we've identified in the last 12 months, a significant shortage of aeronautical engineers not being able to meet the demand locally. So we've been working closely with the College and the Council to try and address that, to try and encourage skills and get more apprenticeships back into the shop for really, really important. So we're quite passionate about trying to play our part of that in the airport. What we'd like to see is a live aircraft training facility on site, and we're working with them closely with a project with that. And they're very keen to see that, because it's a whole system getting through the schools, getting through the schools, into training, into quickly back into jobs and getting the tickets to be able to supply a job. And there's high value jobs that are being attracted to Prestwick. We've had some interest over the last couple of years in increasing the MRO and maintenance repair and overhaul offering here at Prestwick. There have been some parties interested if we could build hangars for them to do maintenance in. They've not always been the highest quality request for business, but the point is hangars cost a lot of money to build a hangar for a two-wide bodied aircraft to be tail in is 50, 60, 70 million pounds. And for those projects to be pushed for, we'd have to have pretty heavy guarantees from the customers in the end so that we weren't building infrastructure for no income. So we've got to be quite careful about these things. And the board is very aware of the risks that are involved with some of these high value projects. But there is latent demand out there. Now, as Ian says, we've got to solve first thing first. It's all very well, throwing a hangar up at great expense. We've got to have guarantees for it, but we've also got to have the people to operate that. And that means aircraft engineers. There is a shortage in Britain. There's probably a shortage in the world right now if we look right across the world. But as we say, we're working with Ayrshire College to start to bring through people on aircraft engineering qualifications so that they can join the workplace in the Ayrshire area in the future. Thank you. Gordon MacDonald, followed by Maggie Chandler. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning panel. A couple of questions about your accounts. At a quick look at the TS Presswick hold company, you quite rightly pointed out that you've made a profit in recent years of about £2 million for the last two years. But looking at the subsidiaries, it says that Glasgow Presswick Airport, who carry out the airport operations, actually made a loss of £1.5 million. And that Presswick Airport Ltd, which is a property management company, made the profit of £2.4 million. Now, I realise that these figures are before your revaluation reserve and before the financial costs. But could you say a wee bit more about the importance of Presswick Airport Ltd? One of the strengths is the size of the system. It's over 800 acres of land and buildings. We've got 70 tenants, both airside and landside, aeronautical and non-aeronautical. Actually, we say that's one of our strengths to grow. There's a real shortage of commercial space, industrial units, and we've got high demand down at Presswick, which is great. So there's opportunities for us to grow. In terms of the finances, you do need to look at it as a group position to STS Holcomb. Some of that is historic in terms of those estate companies. We've got management charges going from one to the other. So really just looking at the story of it, which is why we use the breakdown in the group accounts to really see what performance of the business is. But it's multifaceted. We've got a big infrastructure cost in the airport, and some of the historical stuff is the land zone in the other part of the business, and there's charges going across it into company. So taking it over and over and around, the business has been profitable for the last four years, cash generative, and it's a significantly different picture of what I took over five years ago, which we had lost making. So it's a great journey to be on. We want to build on that and continue to build on all the strengths and all the different parts of the airport. It will be property, passengers, cargo, general aviation business, and we've got some new ventures coming in, including space sports, one of them, but drone activity. There's other things that are coming into the business, which are really quite exciting. I accept what you're saying that it's a package, and that the property arm of the holding company is basically supporting the airport operations. You talked about your master plan earlier on for the 900 acres that you guys have got. Can you say a wee bit more about that and the importance of that to the viability of press week? So planning for an airport is not a thing for next year or the year after. It's a thing for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years out. It's a massive undertaking. So typically how that starts is with a master plan, which is a test of a conceptual plan around how will the airport be laid out on a macro level over those very long-term timescales. So it might take, in fact, in press week, in case it does take the form of, is the terminal still going to be the same shape it is? Is it going to be the same place it is? Is the cargo area going to be where it is, or do we need that land for something else and hope that 10, 20, 30 years is it perhaps going to move somewhere? We're not in any way suggesting we're going to realign the runways or anything like that, but master planning in theory could cover all that sort of thing. We have to look at how it's almost like taking the 30,000-foot view of looking down on the airport in terms of the way it's physically laid out and how you would move the chess pieces on the chess board below you, and then you start to drill that down into more tactical planning around, right, if we're going to, if we get to target X for our cargo business, do we then need to start creating land free around about the cargo area, or do we need to move the cargo area somewhere else to enable its expansion later on in line with our planning? Similarly, for example, we look far enough down the road that there's a potential, a very distant potential for more rail freight coming in and out of press week, so it can go on to aircraft thereafter. We've got access to railways here, they run right past the site, but we don't necessarily have a siding that's suitable for cargo trains to come in and park and be loaded and offloaded with enough room around about to do that operation, but there is a route potentially planning permission allowing and so on and so on that another siding could be built into the airport. If that was built where it is, the master plan says the cargo area would have to move, that's not going to happen in the next 10 years. That's something much further down the road, so it is about taking that 30,000-foot view and thinking about how you're going to move your strategic assets around the board below you and then how that translates down into shorter-term projects and ultimately all the way down to an operating budget for next year. That sounds like an awful lot of investment that's required over the next 30 years. It depends on what aspects of the master plan are our goers and what are not. A master plan, to some extent, can be a dream of what you could do if you had unlimited resource, but no business publicly or privately owned has unlimited resource and every single investment has to make a return. It has to make a return in the public or the private sector. We, as a board, ensure that when we do invest money here it makes a proper return because we're setting this business up on a commercial footing to be sold back into the commercial world and if we don't make sure that our capital is allocated correctly and has the correct returns, it will become an unsailable asset and we have no intention of that. In the best interests, if you've got this master plan for 30 years to reinvent Presswick, we've seen in previous decades that the airport was owned by the Canadian entrepreneur, Matthew Hudson, then the stagecoach group, then Infer Trill and then obviously Scottish Government took it over in 2013. Is it the best interest either getting access to finance or operationally for it to remain within the public ownership or should it be moved over to the commercial side? It's a stated aim of our owners of Scottish Government to return it to the commercial side. I'm asking if you've got a view on that. Yeah, I'm coming to that. That's a stated aim and that's the framework under which we work. Now, that works because we've taken the former Infer Trill asset which was loss making, we've turned it around to become profitable, it's sustainably profitable. The more profitable it makes, the higher the value it will have when it is ultimately returned to the private sector. So it is absolutely a going concern to return to the private sector. The question for us is how can we maximise value for the Scottish taxpayer when at the point that that liquidity event happens? So a couple of final questions. One, you know, you've said you've returned to profitability over the last four years, you've returned a profit. At what point do you intend to start paying dividends? And secondly, you have a debt of a loan debt of £43 million and I noticed that the interest is accruing in the background. It was seven odd million previous years, now nine million. When will some of that start to be repaid to the Scottish Government? So that loan and rolled up interest would be payable on a liquidity event. So a liquidity event could be a sale, a restructure, a merger, whatever it is. It's got to be something that releases cash to pay back to pay back. An airport is a costly thing to run. So until that happens. I was thinking more about the interest and the dividend. So interest-wise, what we have is a deal which is done with the Scottish Government on commercial terms, commercial interest rates and a commercial arrangement of what's known as payment in kind, which is a roll-up of interest. So the interest rolls up and is overpaid back at the end like a balloon payment. It's a common structure that's used in projects like this. It's used in a private sector in private equity deals and so on. It's quite similar to what might happen at somewhere like Glasgow or Edinburgh Airport where they've got private equity owners. It's no different and the point there is to protect the company's day-to-day cash so that they can recover and rebuild their business with a view to paying the dividends and the money back later on when there's that liquidity point when the cash should release to do so. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you. Maggie Chapman followed by Colin Smyth. Thanks very much. Colin, and good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us this morning. I've got a couple of questions. The first cluster of questions are around environmental impact and net zero. Of course, you mentioned in your opening comments the activities in progress made in relation to net zero and reducing emissions within the airport's operations. Can I just ask if we think of environmental impact beyond carbon emissions, how do you measure and assess your environmental impact on the immediate environment where you are? I'm not talking about carbon emissions, I'm talking about other impacts. I think we have focus in carbon to be fair. That's the first and foremost the easiest thing we can look at and we're pretty proud of the fact that we've actually got a plan that's practical looking at it. I think we divide the airport infrastructure and looking at fabric first and all the good things we've been doing, which is what I think we can control. Reducing that by 50% by 2030 is a really good aim for us. I think if we can become sustainable in terms of energy, which is to do with our electricity network and becoming that system with solar energy, et cetera, that's another part of our objective as well. I think we split into aviation fuel, which is another big impact environment and aircraft, et cetera. Ian, if I can stop you there, I asked specifically about non-carbon, non-emissions, environmental impact. Are you talking about things like pollutants and things like that? I'm asking you what your assessment of your non-carbon environmental impact is, how you measure, how you monitor and how you mitigate. You've got, as you've told us, over 800, you've got a substantial site to manage. How are you measuring your broader environmental impact where you are? Yes. I think things like sewage and water are the kind of things you're talking about. And other pollutants? Yes. The biggest buzz is obviously controlling fuel in the airfield, et cetera, and measuring, making sure, protecting that because that's the biggest pollutant that we handle. But in terms of things like water management, et cetera, we've got an environmental officer who deals with that and wants to waste products, wants the quality of water, inputs and outputs. In terms of things like fuel getting into public waterways and things like that, aviation fuel farms are regulated, very, very tight regulations. We ensure those are adhered to properly. We've got proper emergency plans. Should there be a leak, we've got proper plans in terms of things like monitoring the public waterways. And we know what we'll do if indeed there was a leak. The only other thing I can think of at the top of my head might be given the weather outside is de-icing fluid. But de-icing takes place in certain areas of the airport only where the de-icing fluid goes into specific drains which are designed to take those fluids and isolate them from getting into public waterways. So beyond that, and direct carbon emissions from fuel, I can't think of anything else you might be referring to. What about light pollution and noise pollution? Well, noise pollution obviously comes from aircraft. Aircraft are becoming less noisy as time goes on, as engine technology gets better and better. That, I suppose, looks after itself in as much as aircraft get better and better. So you're not routinely monitoring either of those? I'm not saying we're not monitoring it. What I'm saying is when an aircraft arrives, it arrives. It makes the noise, it makes. We can't stop that except by stopping them arriving and that will be cutting our own throat. But you still have a responsibility to monitor and assess what those impacts are. I'm not hearing that you're doing that because I think particularly with noise, there are things you can do with different flight paths, flight path management and that kind of thing which I haven't heard you talk about. But I'll move on to the sustainable aviation fuel. Earlier this year, the Royal Society published a report that indicated that they looked at a suite of options, the four different options that are looking like there might be some possibility in sustainable aviation fuel development and concluded that none of the four actually look like they're going to replace fossil jet fuel in the near future. So I just wonder if you can outline how quantified is your assessment of or your target of being able to replace one of your seven fuel tanks with SAF and what kind of timescale are you looking at? How robust is that or is it just wishful? You want to be able to do it but actually the technology isn't there yet? Well, the tanks are there and our supplier is very keen to be partnering in that and to establish that. So they're at the forefront of our supply or fuel supply here. So they've invested in sustainable aviation fuel and they want to improve that supply chain to get it on-field, get it on to airports, to get it being used to encourage airlines, which again is a complex subject of how you get airlines converted to SAF because there's a cost to it and it's about whether it's mandated by governments and I think that's probably what's going to have to happen as it happens in other countries for that to change that. But what we can do, what we can do is encourage that by having a supply of SAF and encouraging our airlines and users to use it. But I suppose I haven't heard an answer to the how confident are you in the ability of this to happen given that the Royal Society is quite clear that in the short term none of the options that are currently being explored and research being done on them, none of them look likely to replace fossil jet fuel in the short term. So I suppose I'm looking at longer term risk here. If you're saying that yes, we will do this, I haven't heard a timescale and what happens if and when that doesn't happen in terms of your overall assessment? The last week, Virgin Atlantic flew a flight from London Heathrow to JFK and 100% sustainable aviation fuel. That was the first one that went transatlantic with passengers on board and that was successful. There is a slow move towards sustainable aviation fuel in the industry. We're in a position that we can help enable that because we've got seven tanks. We don't necessarily need all seven all the time and we can, with BP's help, we can put one aside in the near future. I'm not going to say in three years' time or two years' time or one year's time, but it could be as soon as one year's time, but I'm not going to guarantee that one of those tanks becomes purely sustainable aviation fuel because we've got the capacity in Scotland to do that. Now, I'm not sure that some of the other airports in Scotland have a spare tank where they can put aside for sustainable aviation. So what we can do and what part of the plan is, put one of ours aside where we have capacity and then use it as the sustainable aviation fuel market grows, we can use it to supply other airports where they only need small amounts until such times have they got the critical mass to transfer their entire infrastructure over to sustainable aviation fuel. So, I think it's about enabling it to be clear that the tank itself has been used for SAF already. We use it through June 26, so we supplied SAF on site for the visiting heads of stakes that came here. So we had that set up. So it's not a technical issue from our perspective. I think the bigger value is getting them to use it, which is a bigger, more complex subject. I understand the opportunities there and you seem like you're ready to take advantage of those if they materialise. My final question on a different topic. Audit Scotland has recommended the development of a clear exit strategy for public investment in the airport, and I just wondered how you are assessing and measuring value for money of that public sector investment, that public money investment? Well, I think the value for money calculation whilst we're party to it would only happen at Scottish Government level because we are not necessarily aware of what value the whole press we care for act in their own books. So in terms of the public first, that's the level at which any calculation would have to happen. However, we know what it looks like from our books point of view, and we can sort of stage ourselves well. If someone comes along and say, for example, stupidly offers a pound or something like that, we're going to say, well, we made 2.1 million last year and we can value the business based on that and may take a kind of debt and so on, and that would be a silly number. So it's not going to be that and we're going to chase those sort of offers away or as furious, but it is something that at Scottish Government level has to be looked at. I think it's maybe a question for them. Let's not just forget also about the jobs that we sustain here. So when we talk about the value, the value to the Scottish government in the airshare is significant. It's well over 1,000 jobs now with some growth. Some of our local employees here want to grow and expand, so we see more jobs coming through directly linked with the airport, but also many, many more jobs around that as well. So this is a significant impact to the airport, to the local economy as well. So it's a bigger statement in terms of volume. I couldn't find it in your report, in the annual report, and apologies if I've missed it, but quantifying and monitoring social return on investment, I couldn't see that in the report. Could you just say a little bit more? Maybe it's an extension of what you were saying there around jobs and wider community, but I just wondered if there was more you wanted to say on that. I think it's worth just saying that, as I became chairman, I inherited a company that had an abort that had been concentrated solely on turning this business around and making profitable again, and maybe some of the reporting around that hadn't been developed as much because that was the concentration. Now, what you might have noticed recently is that we started to put together more of what you might call a glossy report around other things other than just the accounting numbers, and that's completely in its infancy at the moment. I would expect that that will develop over the coming years to include more wider reporting on things like social matters, governance matters, and environmental matters for that matter. We just have to maybe forgive us a little bit, but the team was very much focused on filling the black hole of losses for five years and turning the business around. One thing I would say, though, just in terms of social side, that what makes Prestwick standard is its people. One of the things I'm really impressed with is the Prestwick team spirit, a way of a fantastic set of people who work so well. We do everything here from air traffic control, passenger handling, ground handling. Every set of flashes of everything is here, and we're part of a Prestwick team. That's the biggest asset, quite frankly, for any business, and that can be my focus to empower those people and encourage them and to start to pay better the conditions and pay for what we've done in the last two years, which is about giving back to the economy. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Time is getting a wee bit tight, so I'm going to ask both the members asking questions and the panel responding to be fairly succinct. Colin Smyth, furled by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, convener. Good morning again to the panel. Mr Foggy, you mentioned earlier the previous REC committee sessions. I remember them well, and you've said that the airports obviously changed a lot since then. It's a strong asset, and I very much agree with that. So why do you think so far that there hasn't been a bid for the airport that, in the view of the Scottish Government, has been an acceptable bid for its sale? Well, there was, I must say, before Covid, we were 95% through to a sale process, but unfortunately the pandemic hit and that bidder had to withdraw because there was another airport business, and that was a significant impact on them, so they had to focus on the investment elsewhere. So that's simply not true at that time. We need to set the bar pretty high here because we want to make sure that we've got the right home for this. We've turned it into a profitable business. We now want to make it so. If it's going to be sold, it has to be in the right hands with real aviation experience to take it to the next generation and next level. Bids for the airport or any business are very distracting to senior management because they take up a lot of time, they stop up a lot of time, and the board has recognised that. What we've done is made sure that there's a pre-filter put in place so that any spurious bids or bids that don't have the correct financial backing, they don't have the correct experience, and various other things don't fit. Don't go beyond the first filter. Otherwise, we will end up down a rabbit hole of Ian and his team doing nothing but managing potentially spurious bids and not paying attention to their day job. It's more important that they pay attention to their day job, deliver value for the taxpayer and the owner, and look at only those bids that can be pre-qualified as being credible and viable. The other thing is finalising a quick comment, and there's five years of big difference from making losses in the history of that to now turning to profit. It's a far more attractive asset now, and the time that's coming to that when the right time of that is with my job, and our job is to continue to build that focus because the bigger the profits back to that measure again, the bigger the volume, the bigger the value of the shareholder. So are there any credible bids on the table at the moment? As we say, we've had time to time, we've had bids. I'm currently looking at one expression of interest that is going through that early process of diligence, and we'll get more details into those. We'll put it through that filter, and we'll recommend upwards to the Scottish Government what the board thinks is the realistic next step. But the criteria is quite high again that has to go through a robust process. So just for the record, can you tell us how many bids you have received in total that have then been passed to the Scottish Government with a recommendation for sale from the board? Well, during my time as chair, none, we've received a small number of bids during my time as chair, and each one has not passed every test that's required. So there's not been any bids since the sale of the airport in 2013 that have gone to the Scottish Government with a recommendation? During my time as chair, which is the last two years, approximately. I referred to the one that was prior to the pandemic, and that was a recommendation, and it's finally found the status. So, again, that was purely down to impact of the pandemic. I suppose that the final question is that you obviously find yourself in quite a limbo position. We've talked earlier, it was mentioned, the loans that have been paid, or rather haven't been paid back by the Government have effectively revalued them or the auditors have revalued them with just £11 million because you're not making any payments towards the loans. You've talked about investments so far. Presumably, you're not in a position to make the level of investment that's needed in the airport unless you either get money from the Government or you have a new owner who will make that investment. There must be a lot of outstanding investment. Audit Scotland, for example, said recently that millions more will be needed to sustain the airport in its current model. You know, this limbo position can't go on, either we take a decision that says, you're publicly owned with support of Government or we need a sale. Yeah, our operational cash flow at the moment sustains our business and what we're using the remaining loan amount for is only structural development projects with the proper payback for the long-term add value to a potential sale. So we're not using, if you like, we want to put it in these terms, we're not using our sort of nest egg on day-to-day expenses. The day-to-day expenses are covered by the operational cash flow of the business so the business is sustainable in its own right. What we're using, the remaining part of the loan for at the moment, is things like potentially looking at putting solar farms up, which will have a payback, a normal level of payback for that investment and therefore allow value to the airport. Is not it true that the airport needs millions of pounds to sustain it? Is it cash positive and sustainable as it is right now? It is fair to say that a properly motivated private owner in the long-term will be a better source of the larger funds for the very large projects that might come down the road in the long-term, but those projects are not things that we're considering today, this year or next year. That, just to be clear, is because you simply don't have, the level of profit at the moment means you can't invest and you haven't received any money from the Governments in 2019, so those big projects you're not able to invest in. No, no, not quite. It's like unwinding a spiral. We've unwined the losses to a small profit. Now we've got to turn a small profit into a bigger profit and you use iteratively more investment to unwind that spiral, but you've got to have the confidence that you're already profitable and you're growing to be able to do that. Otherwise, it'd be an irresponsible thing to throw some larger amount of money out there. So you've got to do it bit by bit, step by step, and so the big investments are not today, tomorrow or next year, they're in five years' time and 10 years' time, by which time I would expect that we've had a credible bid from somewhere and we've accepted it and we've recommended it and the deal's been done. So that investment that's required is conditional on the sale of the airport? The long-term investment, I'm sure, because I doubt that our owners have got the appetite for putting big money into press week, but we don't need it right now. We've got the cash balance that we're sustaining our business on a day-to-day basis and cash balance can be used for short- to medium-term strategic projects, which give value to get a better return for the taxpayer. Thank you, convener. Good morning, gentlemen. I've just got a couple of fairly short questions just to follow up on Colin Smyth's line of questioning about potential sales. Can you just explain to us how the credibility of bids is actually determined? Is that done by you or is it done by the Scottish Government? It's done by us and the board here at press week considers each bid on its own merits, so typically it will start with something as simple as a questionnaire to be filled in by the potential bidder. The bids will come in when they do come in, usually by letter, and it's all very nice to read, but we need more detail. Inevitably, we need more detail, so typically we want to know what's your plan for the airport. That's in broad terms. What's your plan for the airport? What's your backing in terms of finances? What's your experience to deliver said plan? And there are a few questions around that to start with, and depending on the answers we get, we'll get into more detail. But sometimes we get bids where there are really no credible plans and no credible money, and it's almost high in the sky. There are others where there are credible plans, but no money, and so on. So we start to kind of drill into these things and filter them, and if we can tick it up boxes, we then say, well, this is worth spending some management time on. Because it is not worth spending management time on, I really need, the board really needs Ian and his team to concentrate on the day job and deliver day-to-day business. Okay, and at what point then do you advise the Scottish Government that a bid has come in? Is that done routinely, or is it only where you receive a bid that you think is credible and appropriate? And the reason I ask the question is because clearly there's a lot of public money tied up here, so you would expect the Scottish Government to want to be cited on bids that are coming in. The Scottish Government is cited on every letter that comes in of interest in bidding for the airport. They're also cited on the process that takes place at board level as to whether that is credible or not, and then they're cited further on whether there's a recommendation or not on why. Okay, and my final question is, is there any potential conflict of interest here, given that if the airport is sold, presumably you will not anymore be in the positions that you currently hold? Well, it's probably me that you're talking to there, because Ian's a chief executive and he could easily do the do a good job for a new buyer just as he does for this buyer, so it's about me and the board, and quite honestly, I've got plenty of other things to do at my time, but I enjoy this job and I think I've brought value to the airports since I've been here, and I'll continue to do so until I'm not required anymore, but when I'm not required, we'll shake hands and I'll leave. And for me, I'm just so passionate about this airport, it's got so many things it can do and deliver, so yes, it would get the right bidder, and it needs to be sustainable, but it can't just be. When these are about airport spains, the recent spains that can bring finance, it could bring all those things back to the right player that we want in here to ensure the long-term success of the airport. All right, thank you. And that brings us very neatly to the end of this evidence session, so I'll thank Ian Forge and Forsythe Black for joining us today. And I'll briefly suspend now to allow for a changeover of witnesses. Okay, now I'd like to welcome Neil Gray, Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, and Colin Cook, Director for Economic Development of Scottish Government. I would invite the Cabinet Secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you very much indeed, convener. Good morning. Good morning, colleagues. Welcome the opportunity to appear again before the committee today. Before I move on, I'd like to remind the committee that there is a non-disclosure agreement in place between Glasgow Presswick Airport and the parties responsible for a recent expression of interest in purchasing the airport. And as I set out when accepting an invitation to appear at the committee today, these agreements mean I'm unable to share any additional information concerning this expression of interest, but I'll obviously look to discuss the situation as best as I can. In 2013, the Scottish ministers intervened to secure the future of Glasgow Presswick Airport, a vital asset to Scotland's economy, which would have ceased to operate without our intervention. Glasgow Presswick Airport is at the heart of a growing aerospace cluster in South Ayrshire, delivering high-quality jobs, supporting economic growth across the region, and the airport continues to be vital to our economy, providing global connectivity, relied upon by business throughout Scotland. Our intervention at Glasgow Presswick has secured not only the future of 330 employees directly employed by the airport but also many more beyond across Ayrshire. Scottish ministers remain committed to supporting our investment in the airport. The board of directors and senior leadership team of Glasgow Presswick Airport have worked diligently to put the business on a sound footing following a turbulent period in private ownership. The commitment, professionalism and experience of the management team and employees across the business at Glasgow Presswick not only help it to survive but now to thrive. This year's accounts published on 20 November show that the focus on the diversified nature of its operations has created a stronger business model for the airport, allowing it to adapt to the ever-evolving nature of the aviation industry. I look forward to seeing that positive progress continue. I was pleased to take the opportunity to visit Presswick last month, where I spent the morning touring the airport facilities meeting a number of people who work for the business. I was particularly impressed by the extensive plans that have been drawn up to improve airside facilities, reduce the airport's carbon impact and further bolster Presswick's unique offering in the marketplace. I was also encouraged to hear about the collaborative work that is on-going with Ayrshire College to address the shortage of skilled employees in the sector. It is clear that the Presswick leadership team has left no stone unturned in order to ensure that the business is best equipped to meet the challenges of the future. As the committee is aware, the board of Glasgow Presswick airport received an inquiry in March of this year, expressing an interest in acquiring the airport. The board carefully considered this expression of interest and have confirmed that it would not be appropriate to go further. I wrote to the committee on 14 September, setting out that I had accepted the board's recommendation that the expression of interest did not present a compelling business case and did not demonstrate the credibility and aviation and airport experience to deliver a sustainable future for Glasgow Presswick airport. However, I must reiterate that our door remains open for expressions of interest and we will carefully consider any credible offer from credible parties. We have been clear since our acquisition of Glasgow airport that it is our intention to return it to the private sector at the appropriate time and opportunity. That position has not changed nor has our commitment to securing a long-term future for the business. I have asked my officials to review all options for the future of Glasgow Presswick airport, including planning for a return to the private sector and the best means of achieving this objective when the circumstances are right. As you would expect, my officials have commissioned expert legal and commercial advice, which will inform the options taken forward for consideration. We wish to secure a sustainable future for the business, which recognises not just the commercial value in the business itself but the wider contribution it makes to the local and regional economies that it serves. We wish to return the business to the private sector, however, we are not a distressed seller. If the time and circumstances are not right for achieving a sale on the best possible terms for ministers and taxpayers, we are confident that Glasgow Presswick airport will continue to flourish under our ownership. I look forward to discussing said future with the committee with interest this morning. Let me start with just a very general question. What involvement does the Scottish Government have in setting the strategy for the airport? My senior officials, led by Colin Cook, have regular engagement with the airport. We sit on the operations board and we have a responsibility set out in the management statement of how the strategy for the airport is set out. We have close involvement, however, day-to-day operational decisions are obviously commercial matters for the management and the board. So you fully participate in the decisions that are being taken by the board? We participate in the strategic direction of the airport, obviously commercial decisions, day-to-day operations are commercial decisions for the airport to take. Given that the ultimate aim is to return the airport to the private sector, how does that impact on the strategic direction of the airport at this time? I think you heard pretty clearly from the leadership team in your earlier session that their focus on growing the business, on ensuring that it continues to have an upward profitability spiral, is one that obviously makes it inherently marketable in the private sector and makes it a stronger asset for the Scottish Government, but also to ensure that we receive return to the public purse. Obviously, the strategy of continuing to see a good, strong business being commercially viable is one that is conducive to moving it back to the private sector. Realistically, if you are setting strategy for the short to medium term, you are always going to have this looming in the background that there is going to be a sale and therefore the strategy is bound to some extent to be affected by that. As I said, I think that the evidence from this morning would suggest that actually the two go hand in hand. The work that has been done by the airport to make sure that it is an on-going concern and is becoming a strong asset is one that means that the strategy, the long-term strategy, is working for the airport. Clearly, the day-to-day operational decisions that the airport take again have proven to be strong and they continue to operate in a way that is returning a business to becoming a strategic economic asset for this country. I turn to Murdo Fraser, followed by Maggie Chapman. The Scottish Government has set up a strategic commercial assets division to manage its investments in private enterprises like Prestwick Airport. Is this going to make any practical difference to the way that the airport's investment is being managed? To set up SCAD was a recommendation of Orrick Scotland to ensure that we were effectively managing our strategic assets that were under our ownership. I think that it has meant that there is a greater involvement of senior officials in the operations of those businesses and means that we have a very close working relationship, as is reiterated to the convener. Day-to-day operational decisions are commercial matters, but having a close working relationship on the strategic direction is clearly very important. I turn to Colin in terms of a more practical day-to-day perspective. I believe that it has been an improvement in terms of the way that we are operating with our strategic assets. Colin, you would wish to comment further. I thank the cabinet secretary. The strategic commercial assets division is part of my directorate, part of the economic development directorate. It was an initiative championed by the permanent secretary as a response to observations and recommendations from Orrick Scotland about the management of those assets. Its role is to provide a centre of expertise for the Scottish Government throughout the life cycle of asset management. Everything from looking externally to seeing whether there are potential assets that are in distress through to the process of acquisition, the process of managing an asset and ultimately should this be in the public interest and in line with ministerial objectives, the process of divesting of that asset. I am confident that we have put together a team that has the expertise and the skills to do all of that. I am also confident that we have a network of advisers that we can call upon who we are working with who have the right professional expertise to add value to that process. In that sense, I think that we have made a difference to the way in which our assets are managed. I think that Orrick Scotland has commented very positively about the difference that we are making. What was the gap in knowledge or oversight that was identified that led this to be established? I am not sure that I would characterise it as a gap so much as a set of recommendations from Orrick Scotland that suggested that we should bring the various functions that were across the Scottish Government together and to consolidate them. By doing that, we would be able to strengthen our approach. For example, the asset that we are talking about today, Presswick Airport, was two years ago, it would have been managed by a different part of the Scottish Government, it would have been managed by Transport Scotland, and we have managed to bring them into a central team. I am responsible for Ferguson Marine, I am responsible for Presswick Airport and I am responsible for the Scottish Government's interests in the Lucarba, Aluminium, Smelter and Hydro. We have brought all three of those together. It also means that we are able to learn lessons from previous projects such as our involvement with Bifab. We bring all that together, we are able to consolidate our learning, develop the skills that are required because they are very similar in the way in which we act as a shareholder and I think that we will strengthen our approach as going forward. Obviously, we have heard a lot there about the strategic commercial assets division, which I think that we would all welcome that being in existence. The cabinet secretary has rightly pointed out that this is the strategy rather than day-to-day operations. However, in terms of some of the questioning today about strategy and not just day-to-day operations, some of the answers were a little bit vague, shall we say. I asked a question about military operations, the reliance on the income from military operations, and I asked about the fact that those things can change quite rapidly. What is the strategy in ensuring that that revenue stream continues pretty vague in terms of the ambitions to create a spaceport in the area pretty vague? The move to sustainable aviation fuel and the opportunity that there is there is pretty vague. I ask the cabinet secretary and Mr Cuck as well, if you want to bring him in. What is the level of scrutiny from the strategic commercial assets division in terms of teasing out the prospects of some of those things happening? What is the level of scrutiny in terms of that strategic planning, not the day-to-day operations but the strategic planning? First of all, with regards to the diversity of income that comes from the airport site, military flights and military income has been a factor for Glasgow Presswick airport since the 1930s. It goes back quite a considerable time and that on-going diversity is incredibly important to make sure, as I think Mr McDonald's questioning of the senior management demonstrated, of the interrelationship that there is between the airport itself, the actual physical, the passenger element and the military element as well as the wider business operation, which also sees other businesses being located on the site. There is, of course, to answer Mr Stewart's question directly, on-going scrutiny and on-going involvement of myself and Colin Cook and his team. We have people sitting, observing on the operational board on a regular basis, and I think that that has been an enhancement to respond again to Mr Fraser's question to the creation of SCAD and allowing us to have that overview of the way that our assets operate. We are stretching them in terms of what they are seeking to develop through the site. We have spoken about the opportunities that exist there for the spaceport as well as the advent of sustainable aviation fuel and the strategic importance that Prestwick Airport plays in the delivery of aviation fuel across the network. We need to make sure that, as we are doing, that they continue to pedal fast to ensure that that continued development happens at pace and to ensure that the opportunities that they have before them are being realised. On the specific point about sustainable aviation fuel, because the answer that was given might happen in one year, two years, three years, I am not going to give a date at this moment in time, which to me is very, very vague. I hope that the strategic commercial assets division is managing to get a little bit more out of them than that. The other thing in that regard that was said was that we are master planning and it may well be that the master plan will deliver this but maybe not this. My experience with master planning is that you set a course for delivery and if something does not happen, that is a wee bit of a failure, to say the least. I just want to get your thoughts, cabinet secretary, on that level of scrutiny and banishing that vagueness in terms of the Government and the divisions dealing with Prestwick Airport. I will happily take Colin Cook again on the interrogation of that in more detail. In terms of the master planning, in the business space, we would obviously be looking for investments to come off and for the delivery point that Mr Stewart rightly makes to happen. However, with nascent technologies such as the likes of sustainable aviation fuel with infrastructure still being put in place so that the first transatlantic flight only just came on stream recently, clearly some of those investments are going to be risky, are going to be tricky, are not, some may not come off. So I think that was the point that was made earlier by the senior management was that there are opportunities for the site, some will come off, some may not. Obviously our job in government is to try to support them as best as we possibly can to see as much of the opportunity that is before them realised, but recognising the fact that in a commercial world it's not always as straightforward as everything being delivered, but the commercial decision that needs to be applied as well as the practical. I don't know if Colin, you have anything to add? Well, as the cabinet secretary says, we are represented on the Opsco as an observer, so we get to hear and where appropriate input into the strategic discussions of the board. Ultimately it is ministerial approval of the appointment of the chair and non-executives, so we have that influence over the direction of the organisation. I look upon my team as having the role of representing Scottish Government policy to explain the context within which the airport is working and if there's anything that we would wish to follow up after this meeting on the specifics of sustainable fuel, I'll certainly do that. I also think that we have a role in trying to support the airport to achieve its strategic direction, so a good example which you've quoted would be the spaceport, for example. I think it's right and proper that we set out a context that describes the Scottish Government's interest in developing space as a sector and that the airport should respond to that. That doesn't mean that the actual strategy, the day-to-day strategy for the airport, of course remains a matter for them, but we would represent that wider context and they can make decisions within that context. Obviously, I think that everyone wants to see the sail going ahead and they want to get rid of every possible controversy in order to ensure that that sail happens. I asked a question about extraordinary rendition and the allegations that Prestwick has hosted extraordinary rendition flights, which of course is a breach of international law, extremely controversial indeed. The folks from Prestwick were at pains to say that it would be the UK Government who decides who is allowed to land. They said that planes often land with doors remaining locked. I recognise that the Scottish Government has previously gone to the UK Government and asked for assurances that those flights are not happening in Scotland. Can I ask that the Scottish Government could do so once again? While there are allegations about those controversial flights landing at the likes of Prestwick, it may be a little bit more difficult to get that sail through, because some folk would not want to touch that kind of controversy with a barge ball. I'll be happy to do that. I'll be happy to make sure, but my understanding is, as was set out in the earlier evidence session, but I'll be happy to seek further confirmation from UK ministers on that fact. Let me turn to Maggie Chapman, followed by Evelyn Tweed. Thanks very much, Collin. Good morning, both. Thank you for being with us this morning. Following on from one of the lines of questioning from Kevin Stewart, talking about the sort of medium term strategic outlook for the airport, obviously the Scottish Government considers it to be a strategic infrastructure asset, and the decision taken 10 years ago to save jobs ultimately is noted. I suppose that there's a question for me in the relationship between Government ownership of the airport and its ability to deliver on its strategic priorities, whether that's business diversification, whether it's net zero, any of the elements that they mentioned in the earlier panel. The shift that would happen with a transfer of ownership or releasing it back to the private sector, where there wouldn't necessarily be the same potential for conditions, for focus on certain elements of those strategic objectives, I'm just wondering, Neil, if you could say a little bit about how what your assessment is of the likelihood of Prestwick becoming the kind of airport that you think it should be under Government ownership compared to private sector ownership. So the operations of the airport remain as close to what they would be on a commercial basis. So the decisions that they are taking, they are doing so with a view to continuing to see profit derived and continuing to see the airport as a business being marketable in the commercial space. I think that that's important to set out. The second element is that, whether it's Glasgow Presswick, where we have more influence given what Colin Cook has set out, or indeed the work that we do with other airports across Scotland on making sure that we're setting out our expectations on how they are operating at their environmental standards, the questions that you posed to the board, the chief executive and the chair around wider decarbonisation, but also their impact on the environment, those are expectations that we have of other airports as well. Regardless of whether they're in the public or the private sector, we will continue to have those discussions. But in terms of what we are doing to try to make sure that the airport is operating as effectively as possible and unsustainably as possible, that's been set out and we will continue to work with them to ensure that the decisions that they're taking not only ensure that they're minimising the environmental impact that they have but also that they continue to be a successful business. I understand what you say about the expectations you would have of any business, any airport, regardless of ownership structure or model, but I suppose that there's a question for me given what I think that their annual report indicates as a success. It's on track in terms of its operations, it's on track to reach a 50% carbon emission reduction by 2030, there's the vague but present thinking around opportunities around sustainable aviation fuel and other things. In terms of the airports, not only their carbon emission reduction but they shift into the broader net zero space for Scotland's industry and energy accounting. Are there conditions that the Scottish Government can put on it as the owner that couldn't happen in the private sector? I was quite surprised actually that given it's been in public ownership for 10 years, there wasn't a social responsibility investment statement, there wasn't a clear ESG statement, and could we as public owners of it be doing better right now, never mind that forward look and hope for a different model in the future? I think that's a fair challenge from Ms Chapman as to whether or not we could be doing more. The expectations that we have on not just Glasgow Presswick but other airports across Scotland and other businesses in terms of their environmental credibility and the support that we need from them in order for us to achieve our net zero objectives. I think they demonstrated and they set out quite clearly the levels of regulation that they're currently under in terms of the wider environmental impact and they also have very clear objectives in terms of their decarbonisation. So whether that's mandated by us or whether that is actually a commercial decision that is being taken because they recognise as most businesses do that the more sustainable businesses are going to be the most successful businesses going forward, I think is there for colleagues to observe and I think the decisions that they're taking are the right ones in order to ensure that they're supporting us and meeting our objectives. Okay, my final question, if I may, is just in your opening remarks you talked about the relationship that the airport has with Esher College and the skills development within that. Can you just say a little bit more about that and how you see that as being central to the broader objectives that we've already been talking about this morning for the airport's future? I think it's the type of work that is going to be critically important not just in Esher but in other regions where you've got a critical employer area because Glasgow Airport isn't just one employer, there are a number of employers on the site and a local college working together to look at answering some of the skills demands that are there and having that strong relationship in taking forward the skills gaps that may exist and ensuring that there is also an aspiration from the young people going through the college system in understanding that they have good careers, good job prospects in their local area and I think that that is really important for people to feel that their home is somewhere that they can continue to live and have successful careers in and be proud of where they live so I think I'm pleased that that relationship is developing, obviously look to support it, not least given the review that's come through from Mr Withers in terms of what we need to do in reshaping our skills agenda and refer colleagues to my colleague Graham Day's statement earlier this week on how we're taking that forward but very pleased to see that interaction and that relationship developing. Evelyn Tweed followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thanks, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, Mr Cook. Cabinet secretary, the Scottish Government have stated that in considering any proposed purchase of the airport they will consider what represents good value for taxpayers and secures the longer term future of press at the airport. Can you define for us what good value looks like? I thank Mr Tweed for this question, convener, because I think it sets out one of the key considerations that we've got across our strategic assets, that of cost and value because the actual cost outlay that has been made in ensuring that there is a financial return for the taxpayer is an important consideration that obviously has a bearing in terms of our overall decision around the overall value, but we've set out, I've set out, Mr Cook, and previously the chair and the chief executive have set out the wider economic value and the hub for economic activity that the airport site is in supporting economic activity within the Ayrshire regional economic partnership area. It's of critical importance that any decision that we take going forward obviously has to maximise the hard financial value for the taxpayers' investment but also has to consider the economic impact on the region in terms of jobs, in terms of any new business opportunity that may be coming through. There are a number of considerations that will be taken should there be, which I hope there will be further expressions of interest coming forward in acquiring the airport. Thanks, cabinet secretary. When the press week airport is sold, how will the Government ensure that it continues to have that positive impact on Ayrshire and its communities? There are things that we can do that are contingent upon the sale around long-term activity and those need to be balanced off against ensuring that we secure a sale, but obviously it's going to be in a new owner's interests of ensuring that there is a good relationship with the local community, ensuring that they have a good positive economic story to tell in terms of the jobs that they're creating because that will determine the overall success and profitability of the airport itself having a strong domestic local supply chain and supply chain networks. All of that will, I suspect, be important considerations for a potential buyer to be considering on bay areas that we would be interested in ensuring longer term for the airport as well. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. I want to continue the conversation that I had with the previous panel about accounts and profitability and so on. Your opening statement, cabinet secretary, was that you're going to be looking at all options. If we're looking at the best interests of the public purse, are you going to be also looking at public ownership? Potentially. I wouldn't rule that out, convener. It depends on the expressions of interests that come forward clearly. The panel this morning set out some of those that have come through down the years. I said in my opening statement that we're not a distressed seller. We're in a position where the airport is an asset that is profitable and is doing incredibly well in terms of having an impact on the local economy. That said, our strategy, our overall objective is to see it return to the commercial sector, but we will only do so when the time is right and the deal is right for the public purse and for the local area. My concern is that the same question that I gave to the previous panel, if you look at the net asset value of the holding company, it's a net liability of £14 million. However, we've got Presswick Airport Limited, which already cross subsidised the airport operation, which is loss making, and Presswick Airport Limited has a value of £30 million. How are you going to attract a buyer when there is no value in the airport and it's operating at a loss? Mr MacDonald will understand that there is a group position that needs to be considered here. The consideration of the passenger airport cannot be taken in isolation versus the rest of the group and the income that comes in is derived from that. I take the point and there is clearly an issue with regards to the outstanding loan to the Scottish Government that will of course be of consideration to any potential buyer and that continues to be on commercial terms. However, I think that the overall position of the group, although I am not operating within the commercial world, I suspect that we will make it an attractive proposition and I hope that we can continue to see the development of the airport in such a way that it becomes even more attractive in the commercial world. I accept 100% that Presswick is a fantastic asset. I accept that it's strategically important and so on. Where the danger is in my eyes of moving it back into private ownership is asset stripping because you're in a situation where all of the value of the company is in a 900 acre site with 70 leases. There is no value in the airport operation itself so if you return it to private ownership then the focus will not be on the airport in my mind. The focus will be on this asset of 900 acres in Ayrshire and we already have CalMac operating ferries which are owned by the Scottish Government. We've now got ScotRail which is owned by the Scottish Government. We've got Lothian Buses here in Edinburgh which is owned via the councils but who are funded by the Scottish Government. I'm just trying to understand why the thinking is that we should be moving it into private ownership when there is that danger of asset stripping and what is this strategic asset which is to regood the country in the long term? To be clear the strategic asset is not just the passenger airport, the strategic asset is the wider site which I have to be clear upon but I absolutely accept the point and Mr McDonald's analysis I think is fair which is why going back to Ms Tweed's question there are potential stipulations that we can put upon a sale. I'm not saying that that is what we are doing but to give assurance to him and we would hope that the work that the board and the management team are doing around ensuring that the operations of the passenger airport become more profitable come to fruition as well to ensure that Mr McDonald's fears are not realised but this will all be part of the consideration that we take forward. The other element that I just wish to point out is that while the airport is publicly owned we don't own the airlines that go within it and I know that Mr McDonald understands that so the comparisons that he's making with some of the other elements here are slightly different. This is about ensuring that the wider site continues to be a strategic asset, continues to operate in a successful manner and I'm keen, I know that my team of officials are keen, to ensure that the passenger airport continues to improve its position as well. Brian Whittle, followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you. From the outset, I've said a bit of a big interest and impressed with the airport all my life and I think it's a phenomenal asset and it has huge potential for the area. You'll know probably from my line of questioning this morning that I'm really concerned about their relationship with wind farm operators specifically around public inquiry that was recently published and I know that there's an ongoing public inquiry which we can't discuss but it is around this approach to the way in which they are looking to mitigate issues of building wind farms around the airport and the requirement upgrade of radar. Specifically to the thermal radar and I indicated that I spoke to the NATS last week on this to look at what the actual requirement is and also with some of the wind farm operators. Cut to the chase, as was accepted by a previous pile, these mitigation and ongoing payments from wind farms are now being seen as an income stream and the report says that there's no basis for ongoing compensatory payments and the way in which they are now being calculated by the airport around a per-wagamot charge is not appropriate. Finally, the way in which NDAs are being used to prevent some of the arrangements being made public is against similar agreements between commercial parties and wind farm developers. How much are you aware of that? How much is this concerning you? Thankfully, the airport is in profit but if these public inquiries continue to find in this way that it shouldn't be an income stream because it's supposed to be specifically for mitigation of impact of radar that would impact the profitability of the airport. How much of that are you aware of that? Obviously, I have to be careful because I've got two interests here. One is in terms of a responsibility in determining some of the applications that we're talking about and also the fact that we've got the shareholder ownership of the airport itself. I think that suffice to say that I am aware of the situation. I heard the evidence this morning from the airport and on my visit I heard clearly from them the feeling that they have of the impact of the wind farms that they have neighbouring to their site. What I would say is that the reporter has gone through a process, the reporter has concluded, the recommendation has been made, which ministers have accepted and I would expect the airport obviously to comply with the decision of the reporter and to ensure that there is an on-going negotiation with wind farm developers in order to ensure that a fair settlement is reached. I'm really pleased to hear the camera secretary take that approach but it's a bit of a contrast to what I heard earlier on from the airport to be quick. They've got a commercial interest obviously and I respect that but we've got a regulatory and a planning interest so of course I expect the airport to comply with the recommendation that has been found from the reporter and the direction that has been given by ministers. Sorry but they have a commercial interest and they report to the board of which that is the Scottish Government, the shareholders. Well no the board is not the shareholders. The board reports to the shareholders of the Scottish Government so the commercial interest is your commercial interest as well. Obviously that is a separate consideration when we are deciding upon a planning application but I hope that Mr Whittle will respect that. The point that I mean to make is that having spoken to some of the wind farm operators, they are absolutely accept that it is their responsibility to mitigate any impact on the airport. That's an absolute acceptance of that. I think that the issue in which I didn't get an answer from what I asked several times was around any money that's coming in from a wind farm operator must be demonstrable and it must be used for mitigating it against any impact on the radar and I've never got an answer to that and I'm asking you, Cabinet Secretary, that is that your understanding and what will you do to ensure that that money that's being raised from wind farm operators is used for the purpose of mitigating it? Yes it is my understanding and I would expect that to be the case. I think it's also important to set out that since the public inquiries, we've published the onshore wind sector deal with developers and they've agreed on a voluntary basis to have earlier negotiation and discussion to ensure that any potential impact in this case on airports but in other communities and other situations happens. It's also to ensure that there's earlier communication with communities around community development and our community benefit to ensure that there is a strategic and a more creative use of community benefit financed to ensure that communities can actually see demonstrable benefit but in this case it's about ensuring that where there is a potential development that developers are having earlier conversations to ensure that there is a more collaborative approach taken so that some of these issues can be resolved before there is a need for a public inquiry to be taken because I think in terms of the delays that that proposes to developers but also to the uncertainty it causes communities and businesses I think it's in everyone's interest that we come to to set these decisions in a quicker fashion. But you would accept though that mitigation for that should not be seen as an income stream? It is an income stream but it's for what purpose? Of course it is an income stream but it's to what purpose and in this case Mr Whittle is right, the purpose has to be to ensure that it is funding the mitigations that are required because of the developments that are being set out. Thank you. Colin Smyth followed by Murdo Fraser. Thanks very much convener and good morning to the panel. Mr Gray, you said earlier that the Government's involvement in press work has allowed it to not just survive but thrive so I suppose 10 years on since the Government bought the airport, why hasn't there been a bid for the airport that in the eyes of the Government was credible and what are the blockages to the sale at the moment? That point was contradicted by the panel this morning that there was a credible bid came forward pre Covid but obviously given the situation that the impact that Covid had that fell through. Clearly I want to see a situation where we are as I've set out in response to other questions I want to see the airport return to the commercial sector. We're not going to do that on any terms, we want those terms to be clear that they're going to provide a clear future pathway for the airport that they demonstrate that they've got the finance and the experience in order to be able to make it a success and that they're going to continue to show and demonstrate wider economic development within the area. We're not going to sell on any terms, we want to ensure that those are realised and we see the maximum possible return for the public purse as well as the maximum possible value for the Scottish economy. I think I would continue to encourage any potential expressions of interest to come forward and we will consider those in the appropriate ways. Just to clarify the point that was raised by Gordon MacDonald in terms of the criteria that you've set for a sale around repayment loans, around jobs, in terms of those passenger services, is that a criteria that they have to be maintained? Notwithstanding that the airlines are separate from the airport but you would not agree to a sale that included removing passenger flights from the airport? No, I think it would be quite clear that we'd be expecting an on-going commitment to the airport and ensuring that there is a continued activity there. In terms of the implication, I suppose that the limbo position we find ourselves in the moment where on the one hand you want to return the airport to the private sector but on the other hand the private sector at the moment don't seem to want that. What are the implications of that limbo that we're in at the moment? I think we need to consider the economic environment that we're currently operating within where I think it's fair to say that airports and airlines have been through more than a little turbulence to pardon the pun with particularly the Covid pandemic but other economic shocks that have hit over recent years. I'm hopeful that we'll see continued interest in the airport but I'm not concerned, not least because the airport is in a good financial situation and its position continues to improve. We're not a distressed seller and we will look at any expressions of interest based upon the strength that the current asset is holding. In terms of the implications, you say that it's in a good financial position and it's certainly making a profit but one of the implications you didn't mention is the fact that the £43.4 million of loans to press wet from the Government are now currently valued at just £11.6 million so that's potentially a loss to the taxpayer of several million pounds. When do you anticipate those loans or part of those loans being paid back or is it just purely on the basis of when there's a sale that's part of the criteria? The position that has been set out is subject to change in terms of the £11 million valuation of the loan. There's a current valuation under way of the airport, which obviously I can't pre-empt but I would expect to see a more, you know, if it does see a more favourable financial position then the value of the loan on the Government's books therefore changes as well in terms of the expectation of realising a return but we want to see a return of the loan as quickly as possible. That is obviously an expectation and has been set out earlier on in terms of the expectation of the current management and the board in terms of how that loan is operating. You continue to defer that interest, when do you anticipate given that the company has been a profit? As soon as we possibly can. I suppose another implication of this limber position on audit Scotland have said millions more is needed to sustain the current model at press wet but obviously the Government haven't put investment in there since 2019. It clearly in terms of securing the long-term future of the airport needs investment where is that investment going to come from if it's not going to come from the Government? Again the panel earlier this morning contradicted the point that Mr Smith is making because they said that the finance that they currently have available is sufficient for the work that they're trying to they're seeking to undertake. There is nothing to stop them if it is required coming to us with a bid for finance if that is what they're seeking or indeed going to the market to seek that if it is required. I'm sure you accept that a company at the moment that are effectively in limbo, they are not the long term but I suppose owners of the company, the Government want to sell it, it's up for sale at the moment in terms of long-term investment that could significantly change a lot in the airport. The current management team are not in a position to do that. You're looking to sell the airport to a new owner and at the moment the current management team are running the basis of we're up for sale. So long-term decisions are not going to be made by a company in terms of significant investment. I don't disagree with Mr Smith's question there. However, again the evidence from the panel this morning suggested that that is not an issue that they are facing, that is not something that they are concerned about and we continue to have discussions with them about the work that they are looking to do, the opportunities that they're looking to realise and continue to support them in any which pathway possible that we can to ensure that those opportunities are realised. Just come back to the point again, what is that long-term blockage? You don't have a queue of people at the door at the moment wanting to buy the airport. What is the blockage to an airport that is? You've said very positive things about the companies making a profit, so why has it not queued your door to buy that airport? What is the blockage? Is it the criteria? What is the reason why you haven't accepted any of the bits? We continue to invite people to come forward with expressions of interest. If the market is not there, the market is not there. I think that the commercial position of the airport is strong and there has previously been a note of interest that came earlier this year. That wasn't followed through for the reasons that have been set out. There was before Covid a very strong case, a very strong expression of interest that were it not for the advent of Covid. It probably would have seen the business return to the private sector. That demonstrates that, in my mind, I do not have a particular concern, as Mr Smith seems to do, around the long-term future of the airport and will continue to take any expressions of interest coming forward seriously and ensure that, while we are able to maximise the return, both from an economic and financial perspective and the value for the local area, we will still be pragmatic in seeking to achieve as much as possible without hindering a process going forward that can see the return to the private sector. I certainly do not have a major concern. I have a real hope, given that it is in mass south of Scotland. At what point, how far down the line before you start to consider the point that was made earlier about the public ownership model as the best way forward? That is the state's quo. We do not need to shift from that. As I said, we are not a distressed seller. It is in a good position. It has good plans to continue to grow. I am not concerned at the position that we have with regard to Glasgow Press, which is the airport. A couple of questions to follow up on Colin Smith's line of questioning around a potential sale. We were discussing with the previous panel their role as the management in assessing bids. What is the relationship between them and the strategic commercial assets division in the Government, in terms of who assesses a bid? They will take first consideration and will contact us if there has been an expression of interest and I will give us detail as to what has come forward. Obviously, that is predicated on that expression of interest going to them first of the Government. We would look to assess some of that as well, but the first port of call is through the board and assessment process that comes through that. Ultimately, it is a Scottish Government decision to accept any bid. We have got loans outstanding to the taxpayer of £43.4 million. Are there circumstances in which you would accept a bid less than that? That is where the consideration on the hard financial position and wider value would come into play. I hope that Mr Fraser would understand that there may need to be pragmatism in that sense, depending on what the bid looked like and depending on the wider factors that they were taking, such as Mr Smith's point about wider investment that they may seek to make within Glasgow Press, but that would be subject to discussions on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, underline, we will be looking to realise maximum return that we can to the public purse. Any other questions from members? No? In that case, thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary and Mr Cook. I suspend the meeting and we will move into private session.