Enterprise and Culture Committee, 18 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

For agenda item 7, I welcome from BAA plc Alastair Smith, who is a fairly well-kent face round the Parliament, and Eddie Biber. From Glasgow Prestwick International Airport plc, I welcome Eoghainn MacLean and David Grant. The witnesses have circulated papers, and I think that I am right in saying that Alastair Smith and Eoghainn MacLean will make introductory statements, after which we will ask questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. We recognise with almost grudging admiration the care with which the title of the organisation from which you have already taken evidence—the rather grandly named Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association—was chosen. You might well be thinking, "What's in a name?" but names carry connotations, and the term "park and ride" certainly does.

In making the arguments that we will answer today, SIAPRA seeks to dress itself up as an environmental protection organisation—certainly, Sir Michael Hirst and David Flint laid great store by their operation's green credentials—but let us be clear that the organisation that gave evidence to the committee before Christmas represents owners and operators of private car parks. I am quite sure that they make a good living from their operations around our airports and presumably they would like free rein to continue to do so without any of the associated costs or other implications. I know that the Parliament has set its face against the so-called spin doctors, so I will try to assist you by referring from now on to private, off-airport car park operators, which is what they are.

Having said all that, BAA welcomes the service that is provided by off-airport car parks. They provide a service for our mutual customers and have created a market for which there is clearly a demand. We welcome the competition that they provide. We also welcome the additional capacity that they provide to our ever-expanding business, and our willingness to invest £100,000 at Glasgow airport and £250,000 at Edinburgh in facilities to accommodate their operations should indicate our recognition of the importance of off-airport car parks and the choice that they give to our customers. The off-airport car park operators are being asked to make a contribution—which, incidentally, will not cover the cost of provision in many cases—for the use of those facilities and the associated infrastructure. That contribution is decidedly not a charge that is being levied for access to our airports. There is no such charge and there are no plans to introduce such a charge, nor has there been any attempt at any of our airports to introduce in the new byelaws anything that would facilitate access charging for competing operators.

My colleague will deal with the byelaws and our right to make them, but there is a single overriding principle. The byelaws and our authority under the road traffic legislation, both of which are subject to public accountability, exist so that we can ensure that airport forecourts can be managed safely and securely, kept free from congestion and managed in the best interests of the travelling public. To allow a free-for-all would be hugely detrimental to the service that we provide to the travelling public and could even restrict future development.

I ask the committee to picture the scene as a foreign visitor gets his first impression of Scotland on arriving at the airport and sees black taxis vying for kerb space with private hire cars; coaches and minibuses clogging the forecourt as they drop off their passengers anywhere they like; and people abandoning their cars to go into the terminal to find our whether Auntie Jeannie has arrived. What next—hamburger stalls, ice cream vans and advertising hoardings promoting political parties? Who knows? In the middle of it all is the poor passenger who is trying to get across the road to begin his journey. That is to say nothing of more serious issues of security.

That is not a picture that we dare to contemplate and we hope that the committee will assist us in avoiding it.

Glasgow Prestwick International Airport plc is obliged to the committee for the opportunity to respond to the evidence that SIAPRA submitted. David Grant will answer any questions that relate to the operation of the airport, but I have been asked to lead and to address the committee on the thrust of our written submission, which is the effect of competition law on airports.

Glasgow Prestwick International Airport plc does not oppose SIAPRA's first proposal for reform of section 63 of the Airports Act 1986—the provision under which the byelaws are made—because we do not seek to create rights to charge for any use of the airport by taking special powers under byelaws. We own the airport ground and the airport roads over which access to the airport is taken. There being no public rights of way over those roads, the airport is in the same position as any other owner of commercial property in that it has the right to determine how and by whom its property is used.

The airport seeks from the committee an assurance that those rights will not be cut down—or, at least, if they are cut down, that that be done only because of a specific justification based on the particular economic circumstances of the airport—and, by extension, that any transport facility will be dealt with in a similar way. Therefore, we specifically oppose SIAPRA's second proposal: the blanket creation of public rights of way over all roads and accesses within transport facilities in Scotland.

It might be thought that enterprise or competition concerns are the basis for SIAPRA's second proposal, but any such proposal is entirely unnecessary and wholly inappropriate. It is unnecessary because a well-established system of competition law already exists. That system deals specifically with a competitor's access to an essential facility, including a transport facility. When a question of competition law arises, the application of the law requires an economic analysis of the circumstances that affect the facility and the markets and competitors that use it. If a case is made out in competition law, the duties that that law imposes override property rights. Competition law also provides effective remedies by which, if a case is established, competitors can force access to the facility in question, albeit sometimes on payment of a fee set at an objectively justified level to reflect the facility owner's investment.

SIAPRA's second proposal—to create blanket rights of way over transport facility access roads—would cut right across the system of competition law. The proposal would have the effect of prejudicially deciding all competition issues in relation to every transport facility in Scotland, both now and in the future, by effectively deciding those issues now, in favour of the competitor of the transport facility owner, by giving the competitor a permanent right to make free use of the transport facility owner's asset in the generation of its own profits. In many cases, including that of Prestwick airport, the overall effect across a range of markets in which the facility is used would be anti-competitive.

The specific aspect of competition law that is engaged is the essential facilities doctrine. At its simplest, that doctrine dictates that where an undertaking is dominant in the provision of a facility and the use of that facility is also essential in a secondary market for the provision of other goods and services on which that undertaking also competes, it abuses its dominant position in the upstream market if it refuses without objective justification to provide access to the competitors, thereby eliminating competition. That doctrine has been applied consistently in European law. An example is the Frankfurt airport case, in which the owners of the airport were found to be dominant in the market for the provision of take-off and landing services at and around Frankfurt, and they were required to open up access to the airport apron to ground-handling service providers.

In the current case before the Court of Session, PIK Facilities Ltd v Watson's Ayr-Park Ltd, which is a member of the Scottish Independent Airport Park and Ride Association, that is the very doctrine upon which the park-and-ride operator relied before the Court of Session. It is something of a surprise that the park-and-ride association representative who gave evidence to the committee on 14 December did not draw that to the committee's attention. However, the point is that that doctrine of general application is now of domestic application in this country.

Prestwick airport was purchased and developed almost exclusively with private investment and with considerable success. Some 2.6 million passengers are expected to pass through the airport this year. The airport achieves that success by attracting low-cost air service providers, and it can do that only by being highly competitive in its aircraft-handling markets. As a consequence, it is heavily dependent on non-aeronautical income—that is to say, income that comes from the retail side of its business and from car parking in particular. Car parking forms 40 per cent of the airport's revenues from non-aeronautical income. Without that income, the airport could not continue to attract the low-cost air service providers that it does; indeed, it might not be sustainable as a business.

Providing the park-and-ride association with a free ride on the airport's investment would have a serious effect on the airport's ability to be competitive in upstream markets from car parking. It might also affect the airport's ability to sustain the cost of maintaining the railway station, which is the only such station attached to any airport in Scotland. The on-going costs of the railway station, which are considerable, are met entirely by the airport owners. Although there are substantial benefits to the airport in having such a facility, and although the railway station forms part of an environmentally friendly transport policy for surface access to the airport, the costs are substantial. In addition, the presence of the railway station reduces the income from car parking. If that income were to be further reduced by allowing park-and-ride association members to have a free ride with completely free use of the airport's facilities, the airport's ability to sustain the cost of the railway station would be impaired.

Prestwick airport joins BAA in taking the view that park-and-ride operators are wrong to claim significant environmental benefits for large car parks that are near airports. Prestwick airport does not claim such a benefit for its car parks and it does not fall in favour of the park-and-ride case. Accordingly, Prestwick airport urges the committee to reject SIAPRA's second proposal as a general principle and to recommend no amendment to the bill to create public rights of way in transport facilities. The matter should be left to competition law.

You both make an articulate and powerful case. We also heard an articulate and powerful case from SIAPRA. I will play devil's advocate for a moment and address my question to Alastair Smith, because it is slightly more relevant to BAA. If I, as a private citizen, had a lot of money—I do not—and I obtained planning permission to build my own airport somewhere in Scotland, which I constructed with a terminal, a runway, car parks and roads, and I had permission to connect to the public highway, it is understandable that I would be very upset if someone came along and sought to use my private airport without paying me a charge.

With respect, however, I point out that BAA is not really in the same position. The airports that you run were previously in the public sector. They were created with public money and privatised subject to several safeguards to protect the public and competition. You have the right to make byelaws in relation to traffic flow and congestion, but is that not an historical accident, given your circumstances?

You will have to ask that of the people who drafted the Airports Act 1986. The position is not an accident. Obligations are placed on us to act properly and fairly in everybody's interests. Members should not forget that, in bringing the airports to their current position, we have spent more than £500 million in the past 10 years to develop the infrastructure in Scotland. We plan to spend another £500 million in the next 10 years. Those sums of money are substantial and we are not taking such money from our Scottish airports in profit. It is not unreasonable for people who share in our airports' success to contribute to the facilities that we provide.

I repeat that we welcome the service that off-airport car park operators provide. We could not cope with the traffic flow if they did not exist. However, they are private operators, like us. The situation should involve a business arrangement between two private companies.

I understand that BAA does not intend to make a charge to private operators, other than a charge for services provided.

We would charge only for facilities and not for access to an airport. No one is charged for access to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen airports. A charge would simply be for the facility. We have recognised the importance of such car parks to airports and to passenger service at airports by investing in facilities for them. The facility that has been built at Glasgow airport cost about £100,000 and is not being charged for. It is not being operated at the moment because of a policing issue with services such as charter buses, but it will come into operation as soon as that is resolved. A couple of stances are being used on the other aisle of the forecourt, for which no charge is made.

The facility at Edinburgh airport, which cost about £250,000 to provide, was not solely for car park operators—to be fair, it was also for coaches. All companies apart from one pay about £5,000 a year for that facility.

The witnesses agree that they do not want the committee to go along with what the park-and-ride association is looking for, but they take different approaches. BAA's view is that the forecourt area can be used, provided that the agreed charge to access the facilities is met. Is that correct?

Yes.

What is the situation at Prestwick? Can the park-and-ride companies reach financial agreement with the airport's owners so that there is a similar arrangement to that at Glasgow airport or Edinburgh airport, for example?

The airport is seeking to establish in the courts its right to exclusive use of the airport as a matter of property law. In defence, the park-and-ride association has said that the airport's property rights are limited by competition law. The airport's position on that is not that competition law does not apply, but that the particular requirements are not met in this case, especially because the use of airport roads is not truly essential to the business of such companies. The airport's overall position is that it wishes to establish the principle of its right to control its property. Three years ago, the off-airport car park operator simply took access without permission and managed to resist an interim interdict. It has operated on the airport's land, but has never done so with the airport's consent. The airport wishes to establish its right in property and is thereafter prepared to consider negotiating payment for access. However, the current position is that, as the airport is faced with unauthorised access for which no payment has been offered, it has been forced to take the matter to court to establish its property right.

In lay terms, what would happen if I set up a park-and-ride company in Prestwick and opened a car park, punters came along, parked their cars, jumped into my bus and I drove along to Prestwick airport and pulled up outside the forecourt?

At the moment, nothing would happen in operational terms, because the interim interdict was overturned on the balance of convenience—in other words, the court decided that it would take a long time to decide the matter in the court diary. In answer to the question who would suffer most from the interdict either being in place or not being in place, it was decided that the car park operator would perhaps be long out of business by the time that the court got round to deciding the matter.

In effect, the court has instructed us to allow free, unfettered access with no charge. If we are successful in the court action and the car park operator is excluded—assuming that that is the course of action that we decide to take—he can still drop off his passengers at the bus stops on the public road. Contrary to what Mr Flint has stated, passengers can be dropped off almost adjacent to the terminal—I am talking about a distance of around 50yd—or on the other side of the road, at the railway station. Passengers can use the railway station bridge to go directly into the terminal.

The off-site car park operator has stated that access to the front door is essential, but obviously it is not essential for the 38 per cent of our passengers who come by rail, as the train drops them 200yd from the terminal. In the court case, the lord ordinary recognised that the car park operator would be no more disadvantaged than the railway operator, which must drop off passengers even further away from the terminal. That does not prevent 38 per cent of our passengers from using trains.

I do not want to get too caught up in all the legal shenanigans—I simply want to identify what is happening. I presume that the Prestwick airport authorities took out the interdict to prevent park-and-ride operators from using the forecourt area. Is that correct?

Yes.

So you are trying to prevent the operators from being able to drop people off at your airport in order to force people to use your car park or trains.

No. People could still use the off-site car park. If the car park operator used his private minibus to convey passengers from the off-site car park to the airport, he would simply have to drop off passengers at bus stops on the A79 rather than drive round. That sounds like a moot point, but the point of the court case is to establish our property rights. To use the expression that SIAPRA used, this is the thin end of the wedge. If the car park operator is allowed free access, why should the car hire companies pay us any money for being in the airport? Why should the taxi companies pay us any money?

You keep referring to your court case, but I want to be clear about the operational situation. You say that park-and-ride operators can use the bus stop that is on the other side of the main road. That does not strike me as convenient when you consider someone humphing five bags across the bridge with two kids in tow. At Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, there are convenient canopied areas that keep people dry and the walkways are properly maintained.

If the court rules in your favour, do you intend that the operators should not be allowed to come on to your forecourts, even if they are prepared to enter an agreement—as they have done with BAA—to pay a charge for using the facility?

No—that is not what we are saying. Two points arise. First, we have to establish our rights. We cannot enter a negotiation to charge somebody if they have established in court that we have no right to do so. The question is, do we own our property? Have we the right to the exclusive use of our property, or can anybody come along and trade in a competing business without even telling us? That is the point of the court case.

Following the court case, having established our right, we may enter negotiations with anybody who wishes to conduct a business—competing or otherwise—at the airport.

May I correct Mr Matheson on an earlier point? With the benefit of funding from the west of Scotland transport partnership, for which we are very grateful, we have provided covered walkways from the A79 up to the railway station. Access from that side of the road is therefore much more convenient than it used to be.

That is helpful. Thank you.

I remind everybody that we dare not enter into discussions on the merits of the court case, which is sub judice. I am not a lawyer and I do not think that anybody has yet strayed, but I am sure that somebody somewhere will tell me if we do. We have to keep things tight.

GPIA's written submission states that people can be dropped off at the bus stop at the airport railway station. I presume that, if you win the court case, you will have established your complete control over the facility and, therefore, over the bus stop at the airport railway station, which you also own.

No—the bus stop is on the public highway.

It is not part of the railway station?

No, it is not.

Okay. Thank you.

For most of my colleagues, this is the second time that we have discussed the issue; for me, it is the fourth time, because I am also a member of the Public Petitions Committee.

My first question is for BAA. I know that you submitted draft byelaws in August last year. Our information is that ministers are awaiting a resubmission. As of 22 December, that resubmission had not been received. Has anything been submitted since then? If so, what does it say?

A reply has been sent; I sent it earlier this month and we are awaiting a reply from the Scottish Executive.

So you made a submission in August and have subsequently made what is termed in our papers a resubmission. How does the second submission differ from the first?

One of the Scottish ministers asked us to consider one particular point, which I did. I replied to the Executive.

Are you able to say what that point was?

It concerned disability discrimination and taxis.

Right.

I wanted to pick up on a couple of points in Mr Smith's submission. You talk about BAA's investment of £100,000 at Glasgow and £250,000 at Edinburgh. Were minibus operators at off-site car parks operating in your airports before these facilities were there? I suppose that the question relates to Prestwick as well.

Yes—in fact, at Glasgow they still operate on the old system, outside the terminal building. Having only two stances, shared by 10 companies, was not convenient. My understanding is that there has been no charge for that up to now, and there is certainly no charge at Glasgow at the moment. In fact, there will be no charge until the operators move into the new custom-built facility.

When I travel to Glasgow airport, I often take a bus from the city centre. Do the bus companies that operate that service pay you for their stances at the airport?

I understand that they do.

Would that charge be similar to the one that you would seek from car park operators?

I do not know; I would have to take advice on that.

I was not asking whether the charge would be a similar amount, but whether the type of charge would be similar.

Yes, given the facilities that would be provided.

So basically you are asking car park operators to pay for something for which other people pay a similar type of charge.

Yes. It all comes down to organisation and ensuring that we have not a free-for-all but a sensible operation for the passenger. Most companies accept that our proposals would be good for off-airport car park operators, who have freephone facilities in the building that allow people to contact them and ask them to bring their car round. There are three such operators at Glasgow airport, and the facility will shortly be introduced at Edinburgh airport. Even those operators acknowledge that that is a sensible way of doing business.

SIAPRA told the committee that it has reached agreement on paying for services. However, when I asked a specific question on the matter, it drew a line between services that are paid for and picking up and dropping off cars, which it regarded as a facility, not as a service. What services do operators pay for at the moment?

At Edinburgh airport, there is access to a dedicated coach park that is directly opposite the domestic arrivals hall and a free telephone that allows customers to call and ask to be picked up. Obviously, that park is shared with coach operators, but it is a sensible way of clearing a lot of traffic from the front of the terminal. The issue is not just about convenience; it is about safety and keeping the forecourt clear. There are also security issues to take into account, but I do not want to make too much of them.

At Glasgow airport, there are three freephones in the terminal building. We have also completed a covered walkway and waiting area just outside international arrivals, which should be convenient for people who are returning with all their luggage from Ibiza, for example. That new facility is not yet in operation, because we are not clear about how it will be policed. If we are to offer airport car park operators the further convenience of that walkway and waiting area, we will need to ensure that they have a space to drive up to and that their space is not occupied by a charter coach that has simply found a convenient place to drop people off. As I said, there is no charge at Glasgow airport at the moment, but one will be introduced once operators start making use of the facilities.

Perhaps I am not quite clear in my own mind. I thought that SIAPRA told us that it had already reached an agreement on the services that it will pay for.

Yes, it has. I have just described those services. We are not charging for them yet because they are not fully operational.

Now I am confused, because SIAPRA does not regard those as services and is not willing to pay for them. Are operators paying anything at the moment?

Not at the moment.

I cannot get the distinction between the services that SIAPRA talked about and the dropping-off facility. I understood that the organisation was already paying for something, but you are saying that no payment has been exchanged between the organisation and BAA.

Is there some confusion between what constitutes a service and what constitutes a facility? Alastair Smith described the investment in facilities, which I take to mean the new covered walkway and waiting area. I do not imagine that BAA spends much on providing a phone, but I presume that that is both a facility and a service.

Yes.

We are simply seeking some clarification on the matter. SIAPRA has agreed in principle to pay for the phone, the use of the covered area and so on. Is that correct?

Yes.

And those elements are not in operation yet, but they will be.

I will double-check the existing arrangement.

If we are talking about an in-principle arrangement, that makes things perfectly clear and answers my point.

I seek further clarification. Will the additional charges that we are discussing be levied on operators to allow them to come on to your forecourts in order to pick up and drop off passengers?

No, it is not an access charge.

So, to be clear, there is no access charge.

No, and there is no access charge for any member of the public who wants to drive up and drop off passengers.

And there are no plans to introduce an access charge.

None.

Apart from the charges on which agreement has already been reached, what other charges do you propose, if any?

None that I know of.

I have one other question for the gentleman who represents Prestwick airport. We have heard about what BAA provides at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, but am I to understand that you have not invested in a similar facility on Prestwick airport's forecourt?

There must be a dedicated area under the Department for Transport rule, which is commonly called the 30m rule. That relates to the security and parking of vehicles within 30m of the front of a terminal building. For security reasons, we have to control who parks where. At present, there is a facility on the east side of the terminal that is commonly used by the off-site car park operator, courtesy coaches from hotels and charter coaches—there is disabled access there. There is a dedicated, signposted area.

But there is no covered walkway or other facility similar to that provided by the operators of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

Unfortunately, we do not have £1 million a week to spend on our property, so I cannot claim that the facility is the same quality as the facilities that BAA provides.

I should remind you that you are being broadcast.

I noticed in your submission a comment about the previous owners and operators of the airport.

You mentioned the coach operators and the hotel courtesy coaches that use the facility. Do they pay? I asked a similar question of BAA.

They do not pay at the moment.

Have they been asked to pay and have they refused on similar grounds as apply to the off-site car park operators?

No, we will not pursue revenue from those businesses until we establish whether we have the right to do so at law.

So the case that is currently in the Court of Session is a test case as far as Prestwick is concerned.

The main thrust of the submission is that there is a body of competition law that relates to all those issues. It is not a case of one size fits all. We are not BAA; we are a different animal altogether. The SIAPRA proposal takes a broad brush and applies it to every transport facility, whereas the body of competition law allows every individual situation to be assessed on its economic merits and a decision to be taken on an individual basis. We have made a submission to the Court of Session in relation to the competition law tests. The SIAPRA proposal pushes that to the side and asks for law to be made that rules in its favour without going through all those tests. I am talking about the application of what is already in place for the purpose of establishing rights of access to essential transport facilities and, if there is a charge, what that level of charge should be.

From the competition perspective, Prestwick airport must be able to reserve the right to charge for bare access. The reason for that in competition terms is that it has created by private investment a transport facility that generates economic activity in its upstream markets—the air service handling markets. That has created a secondary market in car parking. The competitiveness of the airport in its upstream, aircraft-handling market is significantly dependent on its incomes from its secondary market. In that market, the off-site car park operators are direct competitors of the airport. That is not like the example of Mr Flint's wife dropping him off—she is not in competition with the airport.

I see that. You have referred to quite a lot of case law. It seems to me that, because of the Frankfurt case, you will ultimately prevail.

That will depend on—

I am just saying that whether the case is decided in the Court of Session or has to go to the European Court of Justice, the test seems to me to be a general one. I am not talking about the specific case.

It is not obvious that the airport will definitely prevail. On balance, our argument that the use of the private roads is not essential has a prospect of success, but that is not certain. It is important to make the point that a distinction has been drawn between services that are provided and bare access. I submit that the committee should not take the view that charging for bare access is in some way illegitimate. Such charges may be critical to Prestwick airport's ability to remain competitive in its upstream markets, which will determine the future of the entire facility.

Prestwick airport might not be the only case in which that is so. The analysis of such matters is gone into in competition law. The proposal to provide free access across the board is an economically unattuned proposal and the balancing exercise should be left to the provisions of section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 and the European law that goes with it. It should not be cut across by a provision that would run right through competition law and might have serious consequences for Prestwick airport.

I seek clarification so that I understand the debate properly. My understanding is that SIAPRA has indicated that it is happy to pay for facilities of the sort that BAA provides. I agree that there are revenue implications and that we want to retain a level playing field for providers of services at airports. However, I will pick up on something that BAA raised in its initial statement. You say that you have no plans to charge for access but that you wish to retain the power to do so in case of potential problems or situations in the future relating to congestion or safety issues, for example.

I will ask Mr Biber to comment, but I should add that congestion can also be dealt with under our road traffic responsibilities.

The airport is a highway authority, so it can make road traffic orders and create yellow lines and so on, in consultation with the police. It advertises such provisions in the usual way so that anyone who objects can make representations. In effect, that work controls the traffic. I do not think that byelaws control traffic, although obviously they control what people can do at the airport—for example, people cannot climb fences and take photographs.

If you can handle congestion in other ways, why do you want to retain the current byelaws? SIAPRA is happy to pay for the dropping-off facility that you provide.

If we give a right for anyone to come on to the airport roads, we cannot control—

Yes. On that point, it seems to me that there is an argument about the facilities that are provided. I thought that SIAPRA said that it was happy to pay for those facilities and that the debate is not about access. Is that a misconception?

My understanding, too, is that SIAPRA is quite happy with the idea of a service charge and that it has reached agreement with BAA on that. Its concern is about the fact that BAA can introduce a charge for access to the airport area.

I have made it as clear as I can that there are no plans to introduce an access charge.

What would the process be if BAA wanted to introduce a charge for access to Glasgow or Edinburgh airport or to any of its airports? Would you have to ask ministers for byelaws?

I do not think that such charges can be imposed under the byelaws, as has been suggested. I have read the byelaws, but if you can tell me—

Would primary legislation be needed to do that?

How would it be done?

It would be done through primary legislation. There is also a suggestion that, because an airport is in effect a local authority under the transport legislation, it could apply to create a charging area. Obviously, the legislative procedures would have to be followed in order to do that.

Why have you submitted draft byelaws?

We wanted to update the byelaws, which were made in 1986. The byelaws for the south-east airports were updated in 1996 and the Scottish airports wanted to do the same thing. That is what we have done.

Is ministerial approval required for you to impose charges for facilities and services on operators?

No. Such charges are an arrangement between two private companies. Obviously, the companies will discuss those matters, as we did with SIAPRA, which agreed that the charge is reasonable. That is how we do business.

If primary legislation were not required and the charge could be imposed under byelaws—

That cannot be done under byelaws.

Are you quite clear about that?

That is what I am saying, but if you can tell me something different, I will be pleased if you can take me through the process.

Let us bottom this out. As far as BAA is concerned, it already has the power to charge for facilities and services. It has reached agreement with the operators on those charges, although the measures have not yet been implemented—

I will check that in relation to what I was saying about the Glasgow situation.

Is it your understanding that any attempt to charge for access would require primary legislation? Is that BAA's position?

Yes. We cannot do that under the byelaws, so some form of legislation would be required. I have not really got the gist—

I want to be absolutely correct about your interpretation.

My interpretation of section 63 of the Airports Act 1986 is that we cannot do that.

Is it your interpretation that primary legislation would be required to change the situation?

Yes.

Let me add to the convener's summary. There is no intention to charge for access. We are not even considering the subject.

Prestwick airport is a different kettle of fish, because it does not have the same history as the BAA airports. Like BAA airports, the airport is entirely privately owned, but BAA inherited certain public responsibilities under the legislation. My understanding is that Prestwick airport is entirely free from such obligations and that the company does not have the same power or statutory duties as BAA has.

We have the right to make byelaws, which was conferred when Prestwick was a BAA airport. We have not updated our byelaws and we would not seek to use them to impose charges.

In relation to the imposition of charges, Prestwick seeks to do no more than to exercise its property rights, just as any other owner of commercial property would do.

That is why you are going to court to establish your property rights.

When do the witnesses from Prestwick expect a decision in the court case?

No decision has been issued today; I checked before I came to the meeting. I expect that the decision will be issued within the next month or two.

If we need any further information to clear up the issue, we will require a quick turnaround, if the witnesses would oblige us with that. I hope that we will not need further information, but if we do we will come back to you and ask for a quick reply, because the situation must be clear. I think that it is clear, but we might need to clarify one or two technicalities before we discuss our report to the Local Government and Transport Committee. I thank the witnesses for their extremely interesting and useful evidence.