Brussels, 13/04/2007 (Agence Europe) - On 11 April, the EP Committee on Transport unanimously adopted the second-reading recommendation on the draft regulation laying down common rules for airport and aircraft security checks. It stuck to the position adopted by the plenary meeting in first reading, voicing objection to the Council's common position of 11 December on financing and setting in place security standards and to the common position on transparency of prices and the levying of security taxes. Once again, therefore, the committee found a way to oppose the Commission's regulation limiting the quantity of liquid that can be carried on board aircraft. According to MEPs, the regulation, which is in application of a Council regulation, could only be maintained after compulsory and indepth reassessment every six months.
On the subject of financing, MEPs suggested that the implementation of additional security measures, which would be more severe than those defined in the Council's common position of 11 December last, should be funded by member states. Currently, the costs involved in setting up common norms (such common measures concerning, among other things, methods for inspection or filtering, control of access, methods for checking the safety and security of aircraft, criteria for taking luggage and food on board, recruitment norms and staff training) are borne by member states, air carriers and passengers. Also, with a view to avoiding competition distortion between the parties concerned, MEPs suggest bringing national legislations into line on the financing of security costs. With the adoption of these amendments, suggested by Italian MEP, Paolo Costa (ALDE), who is both rapporteur and chairman of the parliamentary committee, the committee disagreed with the common position of the Council, which considers that funding issues should be discussed at national level under the principle of subsidiarity.
In the same spirit of things, MEPs were in favour of greater transparency in pricing, taxes and other levies pertaining to safety.
In disagreement once again with the Council, MEPs proposed, where airport or on-board security costs are included in the price of the plane ticket, the passenger must be explicitly informed. Taxes and security costs must not exceed the cost of implementing common measures and must only be used to cover the airport or on-board security costs. On this last point, the committee backed extending the scope of European legislation, so that it also covers in-flight security. Under the terms of the recommendation, in-flight security officers (or “sky marshals” as they are commonly known) will have to be properly trained and will only be allowed on board when authorisation has been given by the state which granted the operating licence to the air carrier concerned. The Council simply had the in-flight security officers not authorised to carry weapons, unless member states decided otherwise.
The committee, aware of lightening the administrative burden, in the spirit of the “Better regulation” principle, adopted the amendment proposed by German Socialist Ulrich Stockmann that specific security measures should automatically expire after six months. Thus, implementing measures, such as the Commission decision to allow only certain amounts of liquid on board, may only be renewed after thorough re-evaluation of the security risks and a thorough evaluation of the costs and operational impact associated with those measures. This measure has often been criticised by the Parliament and passengers (see EUROPE 9316 and 9310). Parliament will debate air security in plenary session during the mini-session in Brussels on 9/10 May. (aby)