Chamber and committees

Mr Forgie, it says it in the public inquiry report. You cannot disagree with the reporter and the minister.

Can you demonstrate that everything that is coming out from the wind farm payments is being ring-fenced specifically to pay for an upgrade of radar?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and Mr Cook.

I have had a big interest in Prestwick airport all my life, and I think that it is a phenomenal asset and has huge potential for the area. From my line of questioning earlier this morning, you will know that I am concerned about the relationship with wind farm operators, specifically around the public inquiry report that was recently published. I know that there are on-going public inquiries, which we cannot discuss, but it is about the approach to the mitigation of issues in relation to building wind farms around the airport and the required radar upgrade, specifically to the Terma radar. I intimated that I spoke to NATS last week, to look at what the actual requirement is, and I also spoke to some of the wind farm operators.

To cut to the chase, as was accepted by the previous panel, on-going mitigation payments from wind farms are now being seen as an income stream. The inquiry report says that

“there is no basis to require ongoing compensatory payments”;

that the way in which those are calculated by the airport—by a charge per megawatt—is “not appropriate”; and, finally, that the way in which non-disclosure agreements are used to prevent some of those arrangements from being made public goes against similar agreements between commercial parties and wind farm developers.

How aware of that are you? How much does it concern you? Thankfully, the airport is in profit but, if public inquiries continue to find in such a way—that payment should not be an income stream, because it is supposed to be specifically for mitigation of the impact on radar—that would impact on the profitability of the airport. How aware of that are you?

When somebody applies to purchase the airport, you would do a report, which would include the runway report from 2019. Is that correct?

So, you would not include a runway report as part of the purchase process.

Good morning, gentlemen. I declare a lifelong interest in Prestwick airport from the start, given that I used to live in Monkton and I joined the crowds in the football field across from my house to watch the inaugural flight of Concorde in 1969—that is how old I am.

I want to use my time to look at the airport’s income streams beyond flight operation; in particular I am interested in agreements with wind farm developers for mitigation payments. You will be aware of the findings of the reports on Clauchrie and Sanquhar. Having read the reports, it seems that the airport’s approach to negotiating mitigation settlements with wind farms has been challenged in several recent planning inquiries for such developments. From comments made by wind farm developers and reporters, it is reasonable to say that your approach is more aggressive than the norm. In particular, you have sought to receive on-going payments beyond an initial lump sum—you have sought to receive payments based on the number of megawatts generated. Most worryingly, you have taken an approach that uses non-disclosure agreements to conceal the value of payments and prevent public scrutiny. I am taking that straight from the report. Do you feel that that is an accurate description of the approach that you have taken to wind farms?

The airport has a commercial interest and reports to the board—the Scottish Government, which is the shareholder.

I am afraid that the evidence that I have taken from NATS disagrees with that. I understand that the Terma radar system is currently in the process of potentially being deployed. Having spoken to the wind farm operators, they are absolutely agreed that they have to pay some mitigation, but that has to be demonstrated by the airport, which they say has not been done.

The report also says that

“there is no basis to require ongoing compensatory payments to be made”

That is a quote directly from the cabinet secretary. The reporter also says that he is clear that a per megawatt basis for the calculation of any contribution would not be appropriate. I understand that there are more findings coming down the road, but those points are made in the reports on Clauchrie and Sanquhar.

What is important is that there is an agreement that the wind farms should provide mitigation and that there should be a capital expenditure payment for any upgrade or replacement of a radar system. However, the reports say that you have not quantified that and that you are trying to get on-going payments out of wind farms to pay for a radar system that is still not in operation even though the wind farms are up and the airport is still functioning. Again, I am saying to you that the mitigation is being used as an income stream. That is what the reports say.

The wind farm operators to whom I have spoken absolutely accept that it is their responsibility to mitigate any impact on the airport, but the issue on which I did not get an answer from the airport, although I asked several times, was the idea that any money that comes in from a wind farm operator must be demonstrable and must be used to mitigate any impact on the radar. I got no answer to that, so I ask you, cabinet secretary, whether that is your understanding, and what you will do to ensure that the money that is raised from wind farm operators is used for the purpose of mitigating the impact.

Do you accept, though, that mitigation from wind farms should not be seen as an income stream?