Official Report 241KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the convener's report. The first matter is a briefing paper on the decision of the European Commission in the case of Ryanair and its use of Charleroi airport, which was briefly referred to when the Minister for Finance and Public Services was here earlier in the meeting.
I do not have any particular objection to that course of action. Having read the Commission's press release, I was a little surprised. I understood what the Minister for Finance and Public Services said about the fact that the matter does not turn out to be quite as we might have understood it to be. I am not doubting that the decision is bad and harmful—Ryanair can complain about it, it is harmful to Prestwick airport and we need to look into it. I tried to read it carefully, but the press release seems to present only one side of the argument.
The matter is slightly more complex than I had realised. The appendix to the press release, which is entitled "Content and impact of the Commission's decision on Charleroi airport", says:
I am relaxed on the matter. I put that option forward because the committee has previously agreed that the use of reporters offers a useful avenue. We have not used reporters yet, which is why I wanted to raise that possibility.
I am grateful for the Commission's press release, which offered pretty interesting background information, but Gordon Jackson hit the nail on the head when he said that it was rather one-sided. We have a duty to follow through and try to establish what the other side is. We must also consider that Charleroi is a local authority airport, whereas many of the airports that Ryanair uses are private airports, as Prestwick is.
There is a danger that we might be drawn into the issue about stymieing competition. Again, I am not in a position to comment on the decision's impact—or perceived impact—at Prestwick, but I know that in the Highlands that particular airline was adept at using state aids while steadfastly ignoring the fact that other low-cost airlines were operating routes out of Inverness to other parts of the EU and the UK. We have to be slightly cautious when we talk about whether this decision, or other Commission decisions, stymie competition. I certainly know that that was not the experience in the Highlands. I tend towards favouring option A.
It is worth noting that, of course, a rapporteur's report would not have the status of a committee report until we accepted, rejected or amended it. It would not be prejudged—we might decide that the decision was a good one, for all we know.
From what I have read and from what I have heard this afternoon, I doubt whether there is much to be gained from pursuing the matter further at this stage. However, if anyone is bursting with enthusiasm to lead an inquiry, I would not want to hold them back.
Like Phil Gallie, I have a constituency interest in Prestwick. However, I know that the Irish are looking into the matter and I do not know whether we could add much to what they might do. Like other members, I am reasonably relaxed about the matter; if Phil Gallie or someone else wants to take on the job of looking into it, I would have no problem with that. As my constituency is adjacent to Prestwick, I would welcome further information about the other side of the story.
I must make the point that we are considering cheap air fares and a range of airports throughout the European Community, rather than just one company. I am sure that the Irish will pursue the Ryanair issue and it is obvious that Ryanair is very important to Prestwick, but the issues go further than that. Several cheap airlines, including Globespan and easyJet, operate from Scotland, so we should not just home in on Ryanair.
That is a good point. One difficulty, which I do not think that the report addresses but which has certainly been highlighted in the press, is the possibility that the decision might have a knock-on effect on other regional airports across Europe. Given that the press have been prone to exaggerate in relation to other aspects of the matter, I do not know what degree of confidence we can have in such reports. However, Phil Gallie's point about widening out the inquiry is relevant.
I accept Phil Gallie's comment that the press release is one-sided, which is why we should be very hesitant about it. However, I am sure that if we asked the other side, we would get the opposite response. The reporter who examines the matter must be aware that the subject will not be easy; indeed, it will be massively difficult. I wish anyone good luck who opens up the issue, looks under all these stones and asks about the principle in question and how it affects other airports, because we are not talking about some wee job. An inquiry into the rights and wrongs of giving airlines subsidies for using airports would be a biggie for anyone.
It appears that although some committee members feel that the option before us is not their preferred one they are relaxed about whether a member undertakes a report on the matter. I think that we are all working on the assumption that Phil Gallie is the most appropriate person to work with the clerks on a brief report. Phil, are you happy to do that?
Yes. The report will be a widespread one.
And the committee will make its own decision on the matter when you report back. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement
Will Phil Gallie report back in this or the next parliamentary session? [Laughter.]
I ask Phil Gallie to report back in 2004.
It is important that Phil Gallie and the clerks come back to the committee with the inquiry's exact remit, because that will allow us to know exactly where we are going. Otherwise, Alasdair Morrison will be right. Indeed, Phil might not be able to report until the session after next. We cannot be vague about this and simply appoint some rapporteur to look into the matter; instead, we need to do things professionally. In my view, we require a clear, narrow remit.
I accept and agree with that point.
I take Keith Raffan's point. Indeed, what he has described is normal working procedure. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the terms of reference will come back to the committee as a matter of course.
The convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee should be contacted as well.
Convener—
Alasdair, this must be your final word, because I want to move on.
I have what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Given that we do not meet until—are we meeting next week?
Yes.
Okay. Fair enough.
Before we move on to the next item, we need to consider the monthly report of the clerk and chief executive of the Parliament and the Parliament's external liaison unit on inward and outward visits to and from the Scottish Parliament. Can I recommend that as usual we welcome the report and thank all those involved?
I want to make a correction. Because of snow, the Tanzanian delegation never appeared. However, they wanted to find out what lessons they could learn from Scottish devolution and use with respect to the relationship between mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.
It is a pity that the delegates never appeared. I am sure that they would have liked the snow here in Scotland.
At a previous meeting, I proposed that, in the interest of openness and transparency, the members of any delegation sent by the Parliament on an outward visit should be named in the monthly report. I notice that that has not happened with regard to the visit to Spain on Tuesday 13 January.
That is a good point. I ask the clerks to comment on it.
We have raised Dennis Canavan's request with the Parliament's external liaison unit and it has been agreed to. The visit in question was undertaken by parliamentary officials, not by elected members. However, I am happy to give Dennis details of who in the Parliament went on the visit.
Thank you.
The report also contains no information about who went on the Enterprise and Culture Committee's visit to Denmark, which has already taken place and included elected members. I will discuss the matter with the clerks and ensure that we receive further information about it.