European and External Relations Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Official Report 117KB pdf

---

Low-cost Carriers (European Commission Decision)

Good afternoon everyone. A couple of members have still to arrive, but we will kick off.

We have one apology, from Irene Oldfather. As far as we are aware, no substitute has been arranged. I understand that the members who have not arrived will arrive later.

The first item on the agenda is the inquiry into the decision of the European Commission in the case of Ryanair and Charleroi airport. Members will recall that we asked Phil Gallie to be a reporter on the issue and to bring back his initial proposals for taking forward the inquiry. We have a brief outline of Phil's proposals in our papers. I ask him to say a few words about them.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to carry out the inquiry. First, no costs are involved, other than some minor charges that might be made on my member's allowances. I have suggested that I should sound out Ryanair and others on the effect that the decision will have on them and on airports and come back to the committee with an outline of the situation as they see it.

Thank you for putting together your proposal and for bringing it to the committee. Are there any comments?

Sorry for being late, convener. I read through Phil Gallie's paper and it seems fine. I may be wrong, but I think that phase 2 should come before phase 1. We seem to be going from the specific to the general, rather than from the general to the specific. I would like the history and development of the relevant European Union regulations to be put at the top, because that is the benchmark. We should then examine not just the operation of new route support schemes, but existing routes.

Are there any further comments?

I endorse that, because those points crossed my mind when I read the paper.

Are you happy to take that on board, Phil?

To explain, a heck of a lot more work is involved in phase 2 than in phase 1. There will be a lot more contacts, and some costs might be involved. If nothing comes of phase 1 and committee members decide that we have enough information and it is not worth taking forward the inquiry, at that point it could be dropped without expenses having been incurred. Phase 1 will not involve much time, but phase 2 will. By phasing the stages in that way, I intended to give the committee the ability to choose how far it wants to go with the inquiry.

The first two activities of phase 2 are required, because they are necessary to set the scene. I am ignorant of the whole area. We cannot deal with specifics and details in a vacuum. Those activities—and certainly the first one—will not involve expense or much work.

I accept that.

I commend Phil for his enthusiasm and enterprise. The issue is of particular interest to Ayrshire members, because of the Prestwick interest. I urge Phil to liaise closely with Irene Oldfather.

I will do. I accept Keith Raffan's points on activities 1 and 2, as they are quite reasonable.

Subject to bringing forward part of phase 2, to put the inquiry into context and outline the European regulations, are we happy to proceed?

Members indicated agreement.