Activities of Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL related to 2010/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners PDF (257 KB) DOC (177 KB)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that any counterterrorism measure should therefore be in full accordance with the fundamental rights and obligations of the European Union, which are necessary in a democratic society and must be proportionate, prescribed by law and thus delimited within the specific aim it wishes to achieveRecalls that the sole objective of any counterterrorism measure is to guarantee citizens' safety, based on criteria of proportionality and respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 27 #
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that the decision to install security scanners at airports falls within the sphere of competence of the Member States, and in this context they must meet the minimum common standards and requirements set by the European Union, without prejudice to the right of the Member States to apply more stringent measures;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Proposes that, once common rules on the use of security scanners have been laid down, the Commission should revise them where necessary to adapt the provisions on the protection of health and fundamental rights to technological progress;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Member States to periodically monitor the long-term effects of exposure to security scanners, taking new scientific developments into account, and to check that the equipment has been correctly installed and is properly used and operated;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for every bodsecurity scanner to meet a minimum set of technical requirements before it can be placed on a permissible screening methods list; these requirements should inter alia ensure the prevention of any possible health risk, including long- term risks;, calls in this regard for any form of x-ray technology to be explicitly excluded from the permissible scomply with European and national legislation in relation to the ALARA principle, pay particular attention to groups considered vulnerable and prevening methods listt the use of imaging technology based on X-ray transmission;
Amendment 61 #
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for people who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be properly and comprehensibly informed about the body scanner, including their right to refuse to be submitted to a body scan andTakes the view that people undergoing checks should receive all the necessary information in advance, particularly regarding the operation of the scanner concerned, what images can be seen and by whom, the conditions in place to protect their rights to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or theirintimacy, privacy and data protection, the impact on people's health, the possibility of refusaling to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security checkpass through the scanner and the alternative control methods available to them;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the, having established common rules on the use of security scanners to ensure tha, should revise these rules when necessary, to adapt the provisions on the protection of health and fundamental rights are adapted to technological progress;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screeninguse of protection scanners as a control method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and the possible health risks, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and dthe possible health risks and risks relating to the degree of protection for fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data, for which purpose account must be taken of the recommendations made by the European Data pProtection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering TerrorismSupervisor, the Article 29 Working Party and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recognises the right of passengers to complain about any irregularity arising from security checks carried out both using security scanners and using other alternative means, where passengers do not wish to submit to a security scan;
Amendment 85 #
Paragraph 10
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Reiterates and upholds its standpoint that the ban on carrying liquids should come to an end in 2011 and 2013 if the technological effectiveness of the tools provided for the purpose of preserving security is confirmed; invites Member States and airports to take all necessary action to ensure that adequate technology is available in good time so that the scheduled end of the ban on carrying liquids does not have the effect of undermining security;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Takes the view that checks on cargo and mail, based on a risk analysis, should be proportional to the threats posed by transporting them and that adequate security should be provided, particularly where cargo and mail are carried in passenger planes; takes the view that the level of security for cargo still varies from one Member State to another and, in line with the objective of one-stop security, the Member States should ensure that the existing measures relating to European cargo and mail are correctly applied;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Stresses the importance of information at customs in order to assesspotential of Customs' information for calculating the risk associated with a specific consignment;s and asks the Commission to consider whether information equipment at customs offices should be expandedtinue its work on the possible use of Customs' electronic systems for aviation security purposes;