Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | TRAN | DE GRANDES PASCUAL Luis ( PPE) | LEICHTFRIED Jörg ( S&D), MEISSNER Gesine ( ALDE), LICHTENBERGER Eva ( Verts/ALE), VAN DALEN Peter ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | ENVI | RIVELLINI Crescenzio ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | LIBE | SARGENTINI Judith ( Verts/ALE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners, in response to the Commission Communication on the subject.
Parliament takes the view that an integrated approach to aviation security is needed, with one-stop security so that passengers, luggage and cargo arriving at an EU airport from another EU airport do not need to be screened again. It calls on the Commission and Member States to develop an integrated risk-analysis system for passengers who may with good reason be suspected of being a security threat and for checks on luggage and cargo, based on all available, reliable information, in particular that provided by the police, intelligence services, customs and transport undertakings. It takes the view that the entire system should be informed by the search for effectiveness, and in full compliance with Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Non-discrimination and in line with EU legislation on data protection.
Security scanners : Members call on the Commission to propose adding security scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, under the condition that it will be accompanied with appropriate rules and common minimum standards for their use, as set out in this resolution. However, the impact assessment requested by the European Parliament in 2008 must first be carried out. It must demonstrate that the devices do not constitute a risk to passenger health, personal data, the individual dignity and privacy of passengers and the effectiveness of these scanners. Furthermore, security scanners should serve to speed up the pace and tempo of checks at airports and reduce inconvenience to passengers, and the Parliament calls on the Commission to take this aspect into account in its proposed legislation.
Necessity and proportionality : the escalating terrorist threat means that public authorities must take the protective and preventive measures. Members state that the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non-metallic objects and liquids, whilst a full hand-search is more likely to cause more irritation, waste more time and face more opposition than a scanner. Concerns regarding privacy and health can be resolved with the technology and methods available. Members feel, however, that people undergoing checks should be given a choice as to whether use security scanners whereby if they refuse, they would be obliged to submit to alternative screening methods that guarantee the same level of effectiveness as security scanners and full respect for their rights and dignity. A refusal should not give rise to any suspicion of the passenger.
Health : Parliament takes the view that exposure to doses of cumulative ionising radiation cannot be acceptable , and that any form of technology using ionising radiation should be explicitly excluded from use in security screening. It calls on the Commission to examine the possibility, under the next research framework programme, of using technology that is completely harmless to all members of the public and which at the same time guarantees aviation security. Member States are asked to 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.
Body images : Members feel that only stick figures should be used and insists that no body images may be produced. Data generated by the scanning process must not be used for purposes other than that of detecting prohibited objects, may be used only for the amount of time necessary for the screening process, must be destroyed immediately after each person has passed through the security control and may not be stored.
Prohibition of discrimination : Members take the view that the operating rules must ensure that a random process of selection is applied and passengers must not be selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria.
Data protection: as well as using a stick figure to protect passengers’ identities, Members stress that the technology used must not have the capacity to store or save data. The use of security scanners must comply with Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data.
Information and treatment of people scanned : Members feel that people undergoing checks should receive comprehensive information in advance, particularly regarding the operation of the scanner concerned, the conditions in place to protect the right to dignity, privacy and data protection and the option of refusing to pass through the scanner. Security staff must receive special training in the use of security scanners in such a way as to respect passengers’ fundamental rights, personal dignity, data protection and health.
Financing aviation security : Parliament urges the Council to adopt a position on aviation security charges at first reading, given that legislation on aviation security and legislation on aviation security charges are closely linked. Security charges should be transparent, that they should be used only to cover security costs and that Member States which decide to apply more stringent measures should finance the ensuing additional costs.
Ban on liquids: Parliament reiterates that the ban on carrying liquids should come to an end in 2013, and it invites Member States and airports 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.
Security measures for cargo : Members recall that 100% scanning of cargo is not practicable. They want Member States to continue their efforts to implement Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, and the corresponding Commission Regulation (EC) No 185/2010, in order to enhance security throughout the entire supply chain. The Commission and Member States are asked to strengthen screening and inspections concerning air cargo, including those relating to the validation of regulated agents for known consignors. Members stress the need to have more inspectors available at national level. They ask the Commission to:
continue its work on the possible use of customs-related electronic systems for aviation security purposes; in particular by making use of the EU’s Import Control System to improve cooperation between customs authorities; ensure the safe transport of cargo originating in third countries, starting at the airport of origin, and to lay down criteria for determining high-risk cargo, identifying the responsibility of each of the various agents; propose a harmonised system for the initial and further training of security staff in relation to cargo, in order to remain abreast of the latest technical developments in the field of security.
International relations : Parliament calls on the Commission and Member States to promote global regulatory standards within the framework of the ICAO in order to support the efforts made by third countries to implement those standards, move towards the mutual recognition of security measures and pursue the objective of effective one-stop security.
Lastly, Members believe that the comitology procedure is inappropriate in the aviation security sector, at least for measures having an impact on citizens’ rights, and calls for Parliament to be fully involved through co decision.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism adopted the own-initiative report by Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL (EPP, ES) on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners, in response to the Commission Communication on the subject.
The report takes the view that an integrated approach to aviation security is needed, with one-stop security so that passengers, luggage and cargo arriving at an EU airport from another EU airport do not need to be screened again. It notes that Member States are entitled to apply more stringent measures than the common basic standards required by European legislation and may thus introduce security scanners on their territory. However, the introduction of security scanners by Member States makes genuine one-stop security impossible, and if the present situation continues the operating conditions that apply to the Member States will not be uniform and will therefore not benefit passengers.
Security scanners: Members call on the Commission to propose adding security scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, under the condition that it will be accompanied with appropriate rules and common minimum standards for their use, as set out in this resolution. However, the impact assessment requested by the European Parliament in 2008 must first be carried out. It must demonstrate that the devices do not constitute a risk to passenger health, personal data, the individual dignity and privacy of passengers and the effectiveness of these scanners. Furthermore, security scanners should serve to speed up the pace and tempo of checks at airports and reduce inconvenience to passengers, and the report calls on the Commission to take this aspect into account in its proposed legislation.
Necessity and proportionality : the escalating terrorist threat means that public authorities must take the protective and preventive measures. Members state that the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non-metallic objects and liquids, whilst a full hand-search is more likely to cause more irritation, waste more time and face more opposition than a scanner. Concerns regarding privacy and health can be resolved with the technology and methods available. Members feel, however, that people undergoing checks should be given a choice as to whether use security scanners whereby if they refuse, they would be obliged to submit to alternative screening methods that guarantee the same level of effectiveness as security scanners and full respect for their rights and dignity. A refusal should not give rise to any suspicion of the passenger. Health: the committee takes the view that exposure to doses of cumulative ionising radiation cannot be acceptable , and that any form of technology using ionising radiation should be explicitly excluded from use in security screening. It calls on the Commission to examine the possibility, under the next research framework programme, of using technology that is completely harmless to all members of the public and which at the same time guarantees aviation security. Member States are asked to 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. Body images : Members feel that only stick figures should be used and insists that no body images may be produced. Data generated by the scanning process must not be used for purposes other than that of detecting prohibited objects, may be used only for the amount of time necessary for the screening process, must be destroyed immediately after each person has passed through the security control and may not be stored. Prohibition of discrimination : Members take the view that the operating rules must ensure that a random process of selection is applied and passengers must not be selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria. Data protection: as well as using a stick figure to protect passengers’ identities, Members stress that the technology used must not have the capacity to store or save data. The use of security scanners must comply with Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data. Information and treatment of people scanned : Members feel that people undergoing checks should receive comprehensive information in advance, particularly regarding the operation of the scanner concerned, the conditions in place to protect the right to dignity, privacy and data protection and the option of refusing to pass through the scanner. Security staff must receive special training in the use of security scanners in such a way as to respect passengers’ fundamental rights, personal dignity, data protection and health.
Financing aviation security : the report urges the Council to adopt a position on aviation security charges at first reading, given that legislation on aviation security and legislation on aviation security charges are closely linked. Security charges should be transparent, that they should be used only to cover security costs and that Member States which decide to apply more stringent measures should finance the ensuing additional costs.
Ban on liquids: the committee reiterates that the ban on carrying liquids should come to an end in 2013, and it invites Member States and airports 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.
Security measures for cargo : Members recall that 100% scanning of cargo is not practicable. They want Member States to continue their efforts to implement Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, and the corresponding Commission Regulation (EC) No 185/2010, in order to enhance security throughout the entire supply chain. The Commission and Member States are asked to strengthen screening and inspections concerning air cargo, including those relating to the validation of regulated agents for known consignors. Members stress the need to have more inspectors available at national level. They ask the Commission to:
continue its work on the possible use of customs-related electronic systems for aviation security purposes; in particular by making use of the EU’s Import Control System to improve cooperation between customs authorities; ensure the safe transport of cargo originating in third countries, starting at the airport of origin, and to lay down criteria for determining high-risk cargo, identifying the responsibility of each of the various agents; propose a harmonised system for the initial and further training of security staff in relation to cargo, in order to remain abreast of the latest technical developments in the field of security.
International relations : the committee calls on the Commission and Member States to promote global regulatory standards within the framework of the ICAO in order to support the efforts made by third countries to implement those standards, move towards the mutual recognition of security measures and pursue the objective of effective one-stop security.
Lastly, Members believe that the comitology procedure is inappropriate in the aviation security sector, at least for measures having an impact on citizens’ rights, and calls for Parliament to be fully involved through co decision.
PURPOSE: to present a Commission communication on the use of security scanners at EU airports.
CONTENT: this Communication addresses an increasing and use of Security Scanners at the airports of the EU regulated at national level. The report is submitted in response to European Parliament Resolution No (2008)0521 on the impact of aviation security measures and body scanners on human rights, privacy, personal dignity and data protection. Different standards of scanners currently deployed in Europe bring a serious risk of fragmenting fundamental rights of EU citizens, impeding their rights of free movement and escalating their health concerns related to new security technologies. While security scanners are still exceptional at European airports, there is a growing need to address these concerns and find a common solution. The Communication examines arguments that only the common European standards for aviation security can provide the framework ensuring a harmonised approach to the use of Security Scanners at airports. It looks at how such a harmonised approach should incorporate EU fundamental rights standards and a common level of health protection to allow adding this technology to the existing list of equipment for screening persons at airports.
The concerns raised over past years on the use of Security Scanners for screening at airports relate primarily to two issues, the creation of body images and the use of x- ray radiation . Firstly, until recently all security scanners produced images of the screened person's body in order to allow a human reviewer of these images to assess the absence of items prohibited from being brought on board aircrafts. Secondly, part of the security scanner technologies emit low doses of radiation, ionising (x-ray) and non-ionising, for detection purposes. In particular, the use of ionising radiation raises health questions. Today technologies exist that neither produce images nor emit radiation. However these two concerns have created a fierce debate on the security scanner's compliance with fundamental rights and public health principles and legislation, applicable in the EU. The key issues are:
Detection performance and operating considerations : airport trials and tests suggest that Security Scanners permit a rigorous screening for a great number of passengers in a short amount of time while providing a reliable detection capability.
Protection of fundamental rights : the paper considers issues on human dignity and personal data. It notes the capability of some screening technologies to reveal a detailed display of the human body (even blurred), and medical conditions, such as prostheses and diapers, has been seen critically from the perspective of respect for human dignity and private life. In addition, the rights of the child require a careful analysis and operating standards must ensure that passengers requested to undergo a security scan are not chosen based on criteria such as gender, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, religion or belief.
With regard to data protection, the criteria against which the scanning has to be assessed are i) whether the measure proposed is appropriate to achieve the objective (detection of non-metallic items and therefore a higher security level), ii) whether it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective and iii) whether there is no less intrusive means.
Health : the report looks at different systems from passive millimetre-wave imaging systems which does not emit radiation to active millimetre-wave imaging system, X-ray backscatter, X-ray transmission imaging. It also examines possible ways to address health concerns of X-ray Security Scanners. While the doses emitted by X-ray security scanners to screen persons are rather low, it is evident any exposure to ionising radiation, however small, may have health effects in the longer term. Therefore exposure even below the dose limits set by European legislation require that any decision on exposure to ionising radiation must be justified on grounds of their economic or public benefit to offset the potential damage from radiation. In addition, radiation protection measures must ensure that all exposures are as low as reasonably achievable (the ALARA principle) for workers, the general public, and the population as a whole. Therefore, if and when a ionising technology is being deployed, the improved efficiency in security terms, compared to the use of a non ionising technology, must be weighed against the possible health impact and thus has to be justified through a considerable gain in security level. Special considerations might also be called for when it comes to passengers that are especially sensitive to ionising radiation, primarily pregnant women and children.
Costs: the purchase cost of a basic Security Scanner per equipment ranges between EUR 100 000 and 200 000. The paper disucsses the additional costs of upgrading and components as well as related costs on training and personnel.
Conclusion: the Communication states that common EU standards for security scanners can ensure an equal level of protection of fundamental rights and health. Only a EU approach would legally guarantee uniform application of security rules and standards throughout all EU airports. This is essential to ensure both the highest level of aviation security as well as the best possible protection of EU citizens' fundamental rights and health. The deployment of any security scanner technology requires a rigorous scientific assessment of the potential health risks that such technology may pose for the population. Scientific evidence documents the health risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation. It justifies particular precaution in considering the use of such radiation in Security Scanners.
It is evident that security scanners alone -like any other single security measure, cannot guarantee 100% aviation security. Nevertheless, tests have shown that security Scanners can improve the quality of security controls at EU airports. Their use could considerably increase the detection capacity especially of those prohibited items, such as liquid or plastic explosive, which cannot be detected by walk-through metal detectors. Alternatives to security scanners based on ionising radiation technology should be available when specific health related risks arise. Any possible future EU harmonisation in this area needs to provide for alternative security checks for vulnerable groups including pregnant women, babies, children and people with disabilities.
Security scanner technologies exist that neither produce neither full body images nor emit ionising radiation. Technical standards and operational conditions to be laid
down by law could significantly reduce concerns related to fundamental rights and health:
under existing technology and safeguards attached to the use of security scanner equipment, fundamental rights issues can be dealt with by a combination of technical equipment specifications and operational rules. Minimum standards could be laid down by law; with the exception of full X-ray transmission imaging, current security scanner technologies can meet existing EU health standards but certain types of equipment will require technical and operational standards to be fixed. Maximum radiation doses must be respected and precautionary safeguards established. Individual protection must ensure that exposure is as low as reasonably achievable, in particular for travellers and workers. The long-term effects of exposure to security scanners should be regularly monitored and new scientific developments taken into account; the travelling public must receive clear and comprehensive information at airports and before travelling on all aspects linked to the use of Security Scanners;
The Commission nevertheless takes note of the ongoing discussion and further possibility for opt-outs, should security scanners be deployed. At the same time, it takes note of the fact that such opt-outs raise issues in relation to security, cost and feasibility that could put the usefulness of a possible deployment in question.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8297
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0329/2011
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0216/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0216/2011
- Committee opinion: PE458.487
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE460.986
- Committee draft report: PE450.741
- Committee opinion: PE452.692
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2010)0311
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Committee opinion: PE452.692
- Committee draft report: PE450.741
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE460.986
- Committee opinion: PE458.487
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0216/2011
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8297
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
- Contribution: COM(2010)0311
Activities
- Jörg LEICHTFRIED
Plenary Speeches (3)
- 2016/11/22 Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners (A7-0216/2011 - Luis de Grandes Pascual) (vote)
- 2016/11/22 Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
- 2016/11/22 Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
- Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL
- Edward MCMILLAN-SCOTT
- Judith SARGENTINI
- Georges BACH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Inés AYALA SENDER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Saïd EL KHADRAOUI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ioan ENCIU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jacqueline FOSTER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mathieu GROSCH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Nathalie GRIESBECK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jacky HÉNIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Eva LICHTENBERGER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Bogdan Kazimierz MARCINKIEWICZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jaroslav PAŠKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Hubert PIRKER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Vilja SAVISAAR-TOOMAST
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Carl SCHLYTER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Olga SEHNALOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Brian SIMPSON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Angelika WERTHMANN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Artur ZASADA
Plenary Speeches (1)
Amendments | Dossier |
332 |
2010/2154(INI)
2010/12/13
ENVI
53 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Takes regard of the Commission’s Communication of 15 June 2010 on the Use of Security Scanners at EU airports, COM(2010)311 final, and the conclusions and recommendations therein;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Acknowledges the importance of security scanners as an additional tool to protect the travelling public, but emphasises the fundamental importance of the proper use of cross-border intelligence, the monitoring of Central Reservation Systems and passenger profiling in identifying potential terrorist threats;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility, under the next framework programme for research, of using technology that is completely harmless to all members of the public and which at the same time ensures air security;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Proposes, as the most suitable solution, active millimetre wave imaging systems using non-ionising radiation, which is
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Proposes, as the most suitable solution
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Proposes, as the
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that a range of body scanners using different technologies are already in operation, believes that each must be assessed on its own merits, and supports the view of the European Commission expressed in its recent Communication that a common level of protection for European citizens could be ensured by way of technical standards and operational conditions that would have to be laid down in EU legislation;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Takes regard of the security concern that universal use of a single technology for threat detection would render body scanners more vulnerable to circumvention, and the recommendation that security risks will be reduced through the use of a variety of technologies and screening systems;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Suggests, as the
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on Member States to deploy technology which is the least harmful for human health and which offers acceptable solutions to the public's privacy concerns;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays. Clearly, any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays. Clearly, any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation.
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays. Clearly, any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation. It is therefore proposed that we avoid this technology, or at least ensure that all exposures
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays. Clearly, any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation. It is therefore proposed that we avoid this technology, or at least ensure that all exposures are as low as possible for workers and regular passengers, or limit it to flights to sensitive destinations and to periods of high alert;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays. Clearly, any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation. It is therefore proposed that we avoid this technology
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Acknowledges that concerns exist about exposure to ionising radiation, but recognises that humans are exposed to background radiation at all times, and that travellers by air at high altitudes routinely experience particular exposure to ultra violet radiation and cosmic rays; notes the Commission’s assessment that the use of X-ray backscatter body scanners exposes travellers to no more than the equivalent of 2% of the natural radiation which they would typically experience each day, or the equivalent to a few minutes travel on a long haul flight;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that the scientific consensus appears to suggest that the use of body scanners presents no risk comparable to that realised by the daily exposure of humans to natural conditions, but is concerned that this assumes that equipment will always function correctly and believes that measures must be taken to ensure that this is in fact the case;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) Encourages any individual or body who can provide evidence that contradicts the current scientific consensus, that exposure to radiation from body scanners currently in use presents no health risks even for young children and pregnant women, to submit evidence to this effect for scientific peer review;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for, in respect of
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for, in respect of the use of X-ray body scanners (paragraph 3), special treatment to be given, especially to passengers who are sensitive to ionising radiation (e.g. pregnant women and children) and to those who refuse on principle to undergo body scanning. Exemptions should also be granted to those with implanted medical devices (e.g. pacemakers and defibrillators);
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for, in respect of the use of X-ray body scanners (paragraph 3), special treatment to be given, especially to passengers who are sensitive to ionising radiation (e.g. pregnant women
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls for, in respect of the use of
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new) Accepts that, notwithstanding the scientific consensus that body scanners present no health risk, European Commission proposals to promote EU harmonisation with respect to their use should take into account potential uncertainties as well as the risk that equipment may sometimes be faulty, and should also address the concerns of individuals with particular fears by providing for Member States to require airport administrations to make special arrangements, when requested, for those who may regard themselves as vulnerable, including pregnant women, babies, children, people with disabilities, and people with implanted medical devices such as pacemakers or defibrillators;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the European Commission to conduct a precautionary in-depth evaluation, via a suitable study or impact assessment, of the health risks for passengers and airport staff arising from the use of body scanners;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to make an impact assessment evaluating the risk of spill-over effects of terrorism to other modes of transport and of the potential increase of cost of security on those means of transport as a consequence of proposed additional measures to passenger controls in the aviation sector;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to present a proposal using passive scanners accompanied by an impact assessment on the relative cost, efficacy and respect for integrity of using this technology as compared to other anti-terror measures;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new) Expects the Commission to ensure that any draft legislation on this matter will lay down requirements for Member States to ensure that body scanners have been properly installed, are properly operated, and are subjected to monitoring and scrutiny to ensure that they are functioning correctly at all times;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Member States to periodically monitor the long-term effects of exposure to body scanners
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Insists that passengers be informed in an appropriate manner about the possible health impacts and risks with regard to both body scanning and the subsequent flight;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Member States to provide passengers with relevant, comprehensive and clear information on all aspects of the use of body scanners for security applications.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls, for as long as reasonable doubts remain as to the safety for human health of the use of body scanners, for travellers to be informed sufficiently in advance that they are to undergo a body scan, and for there to be a genuine alternative to such checks, with a possibility to undergo a different type of check;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the Commission to propose that special training be provided for security staff responsible for using body scanners that takes into account the impact on personal dignity, health and the protection of personal data;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission in conjunction with Member States to produce a Code of Conduct on using security scanners, which requires airports to undertake scanning sensitively, having regard to passengers privacy;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Calls on the sector concerned to draw up, in cooperation with the Commission and the Member States, a code of professional ethics for people responsible for using body scanners that takes into account those persons most vulnerable and those working in the sector, the right to personal privacy and dignity, and the relevant legislation on data protection;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for all security and technical staff who work with or maintain scanners to be outfitted with radiation badges in order to keep a record of their radiation exposure and the levels emitted by the scanners, so that problems can be detected earlier and overexposure can be prevented;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 2 (new) - Calls on the Commission to continue with the technical assessment of the various technologies available on the market to ensure that these satisfy the need for greater airport security while simultaneously safeguarding the health both of passengers and airport staff.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that the use of body scanners represents a severe intrusion into passenger privacy; states that this technology reveals information which is subject to medical confidentiality;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 3 (new) - Calls for a prudent approach to be adopted, given the lack of information on the potential harm caused by radiation and the incomplete understanding of its medium- and long-term effects on human health.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Rejects any further control measures until all earlier anti-terror legislation has been evaluated on the basis of health, cost, efficacy and respect for fundamental human rights, especially integrity and anti-discrimination;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to submit, after two years, a report on costs and benefits and on health impacts.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2 (new) Calls on the Commission to propose without delay a legal framework on the use of body scanners at EU airports that will pay full respect to fundamental rights and address the issue of health concerns;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that the protection of personal data cannot be guaranteed at all times or in all respects;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Acknowledges that Member States have the legal right to insist upon the use of body scanners where they believe that this will enhance security over and above the requirements of EU legislation, or for trial purposes, and trusts that the trials now underway in Finland, France, the Netherlands, Italy and the UK will contribute information that will assist the Commission to develop Europe-wide best practice standards for regulation and codes of practice that will ensure the protection of protect personal data and safeguard human health;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that Member States and airport administrations are making growing use of body scanners in the belief that they can increase the ability of security staff to detect prohibited items, such as liquid or plastic explosive, that cannot be identified by existing metal detectors, as well as eliminating the need for passengers to undergo the discomfort and indignity of body searches;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls for proportionate measures in relation to the risks, bearing in mind similar risks to passengers travelling with other means of transport; furthermore insists that any costs incurred should be paid by the aviation sector and reflected in airline ticket prices;
source: PE-454.501
2011/03/22
TRAN
190 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the use of security scanners represents a severe intrusion into passenger privacy that violates the personal rights and dignity of passengers; whereas this technology reveals information which is subject to medical confidentiality,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas health represents an asset to be preserved and the exposure of passengers to ionising radiation from certain types of scanners, such as those emitting X-rays with cumulative effects, needs to be
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable; believes, therefore, that X-ray transmission imaging should not be used
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable; believes, therefore, that X-ray transmission imaging should not be used in
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable; believes, therefore, that X-ray transmission imaging should not be used in systematic security screening
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Points out that the technology based on backscatter x-ray scanning emits a low dose of X-rays; notes that clearly any exposure to ionising radiation, however low, may have long-term effects on health due to the cumulative effect of radiation; rejects therefore the use of this technology;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Points out that the Member States have a responsibility to assess risks
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls on the Member States to periodically monitor the long-term effects
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Proposes, as the only acceptable solution in order to prevent possible harm to health, passive millimetre wave imaging systems using no radiation at all;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas health represents an asset to be preserved and exposure to ionising radiation from certain types of scanners, such as those emitting X-rays with cumulative effects,
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to adapt Directive 96/29/Euratom
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Calls
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Takes the view that operating rules must guarantee protection for images of passengers
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Takes the view that operating rules must
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used, and that
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used, and that the use of body images should be not permitted
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24.
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas health represents an asset to be preserved and exposure to ionising radiation from
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used instead of producing real body images, and that the use of body images
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be best
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used, and that the use of body images should be permitted only in a remote area, with the appropriate guarantees and on an exceptional basis;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Believes that such protection can
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas health represents a
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored for longer than is
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored for longer than is necessary
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Stresses that images should not be stored for longer than is necessary to ensure aviation security, that they should be destroyed once they are no longer necessary for the intended purposes, that they should only be seen by the operator and that they should not be used for purposes other than to detect prohibited objects;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that people are not selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria; further takes the view that, in line with this non- discriminatory approach, every passenger who refuses to go through the body scan must undergo a security check which is at least as thorough as a security check by a security scanner;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that people are not selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria, though believes some form of passenger profiling is essential in selecting subjects for further scrutiny;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed,
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that people are not selected to pass through a
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that people are not selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria, taking account of the rights of children and of the most vulnerable persons;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that passengers are given comprehensive and accurate information, are offered alternative security checks and give their explicit agreement and that people are not selected to pass through a security scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Takes the view that some form of passenger profiling is necessary to determine whether a passenger should be subjected to more detailed checks;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Takes the view that
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Takes the view that, when images are used, they should not be linked to the passenger's identity and measures should be taken to ensure that passengers cannot be identified with images of any part of the body
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Takes the view that, when images are used, they should not be linked to the passenger's identity and measures should be taken to ensure that passengers cannot be identified with images of any part of the body
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Takes the view that,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas both EU legislation and the laws of the Member States already lay down rules on protection against health hazards that may arise from the use of technologies emitting ionising radiation and on limits for exposure to such radiation, whereas, therefore, scanners using ionising radiation should be prohibited in the European Union;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Stresses that the technology used must not have the capabilities to store or save data;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 b (new) 27b. Calls on the Commission to grant, that staff working with the technology of security scanners must not be allowed to have any devices capable of capturing images during working shifts;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Takes the view that
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Takes 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 the rights to intimacy, privacy and data protection, and the possibility of refusing to pass through the scanner for vulnerable groups, as indicated in paragraph 15 of this resolution;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Takes 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 the rights to intimacy, privacy and data protection, the impact on human health, and the possibility of refusing to pass through the scanner;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Takes the view that people undergoing checks should receive all the necessary information in advance, particularly regarding the operation of the scanner concerned, its technical features, what images can be seen and by whom, the conditions in place to protect the rights to intimacy, privacy and data protection, possible health risks and the possibility of refusing to pass through the scanner, as well as alternative screening methods;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Calls for Commission information campaigns on air passenger rights to include a section which also details their rights regarding security screening and security scanners;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Asks the Commission to initiate the information process regarding security scanners based on a set of common rules meant to facilitate a better information campaign in the EU airports;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission to propose that special training that takes into account the impact on personal dignity, health and
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission to propose that special training that takes into account the impact on personal dignity, health and the protection of personal data be provided for security staff responsible for using
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas preference should be given when using security scanners to systems that only produce images in the style of stick figures or mannequins,
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Points out that it is hugely important for accurate and effective data evaluation to have well-trained and trustworthy staff, who should enjoy social and labour conditions that are commensurate to the very high level of responsibility placed upon them;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, to draw up a code of conduct on the use of
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, to
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States and bodies in the sector, to draw up a code of conduct on the use of security scanners which requires airports to carry out scanning in such a way as to respect passengers’ fundamental rights and includes a set of rules relating to vulnerable persons, workers in the sector, the right to one's human dignity and privacy, and data protection;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, to draw up a code of conduct on the use of security scanners which requires airports to only carry out scanning in such a way as to
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure providing adequate information to all users on the eventual introduction of new technologies concerning security scanner by the same large dissemination measures as applied to the Chart of Passenger rights if a decision is undertaken;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Calls on the sector concerned to draw up, in cooperation with the Commission and the Member States, a code of professional ethics for people responsible for using body scanners that takes into account those persons most vulnerable and those working in the sector, the right to personal privacy and dignity, and the relevant legislation on data protection;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Urges the Council to immediately adopt a position on aviation security charges at first reading
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Reiterates and upholds its standpoint that the ban on carrying liquids should come to an end in
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas concerns over the rights to privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, non-discrimination and data protection cannot be duly guaranteed where security scanners are used
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Reiterates and upholds its standpoint
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 a (new) 34a. Asks the Commission to demonstrate, based on a risk assessment as well as on the results of operational tests, that the interim step, expected in April 2011, to relax the ban on carrying liquids will neither undermine aviation security nor disturb significantly passenger experience;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 a (new) 36a. Expresses its concern at the unsubstantiated claim made by the Commission that the technology to check liquids is fully available; asks the Commission as soon as possible to present the technical report on which that statement was based; also asks the Commission to present the procedures available to guarantee non-discrimination for passengers travelling within the Union and those from third countries;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Urges the Member States, in coordination with airports and airlines, to carry out an appropriate information campaign on passengers' rights; calls on the Commission to cooperate as far as possible in this information work;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Urges the Member States, in coordination with airports, to carry out an appropriate information campaign on passengers' rights as the one carried on the information on the Chart of Passenger Rights; calls on the Commission to cooperate as far as possible in this information work;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Recalls that 100 % scanning of cargo is not practicable; asks the Member States to continue their efforts to implement Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 as well as corresponding Commission Regulation (EC) No 185/2010 in order to enhance security within the entire supply chain;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Takes the view that the level of security for cargo still varies from one Member State to another and that, with a view to achieving one-stop security, the Member States should
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Believes that the
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. Believes that the Commission's checks on cargo and mail have been stepped up, and would therefore consider it
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Calls on the Commission and Member States to strengthen checks on air cargo; stresses the need, to this end, to have more inspectors available
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas concerns over health, the rights to privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, non-discrimination and data protection
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41.
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Calls on the Commission and Member States to strengthen
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. Calls on the Commission and Member States to strengthen screening and inspection checks on air cargo; stresses the need, to this end, to have more inspectors available both at national level and within the Commission;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 a (new) 41a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve cargo security throughout the logistics chain and to strengthen cooperation and information sharing among the competent authorities, including the relevant professionals, in particular by making use of the EU’s Import Control System for improving cooperation between customs authorities;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Stresses the
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Asks the Commission to take all the necessary steps to ensure the safe transport of cargo originating in third countries, starting at the airport of origin, and to lay down criteria for determining high-risk cargo, identifying the responsibility of each of the various agents;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43.
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 44 44. Asks the Commission to ensure that the security programme takes account of the specific characteristics of all the players affected and reconciles security measures relating to the exchange of mail and cargo
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 45 45. Calls on the Commission to propose a harmonised system for the initial and further training of security staff in relation to cargo, in order to remain abreast of the latest technical developments in the field of security;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 46. Calls on the Commission and Member States to work with the ICAO and third countries on risk assessment and intelligence systems in the field of aviation security, recognising that security scanners are no more than an additional protection instrument and that it is necessary to reinforce intelligence services, monitor central reservation systems and determine passenger profiles in the face of possible threats to public safety;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas security scanners, in addition to ensuring a greater level of security than current equipment, should help speed up checks on passengers and cut waiting times,
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46a. Underlines the necessity of carefully monitoring the lifting of the ban on liquids for transit passengers which will come into force in April 2011; Expects the European Parliament to be fully informed of the results of this monitoring process;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Ab. whereas security scanners only scan the surface of the body and do not reveal objects hidden between body folds or inside the body,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas the ban on carrying liquids, aerosols and gels in hand luggage will end in April 2011 for a limited number of passengers (transit passengers carrying liquids, aerosols and gels acquired at a third-country airport or on board a plane belonging to a non-Community carrier, carried in a bag that complies with the security screening guidelines recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, provided that the bag displays satisfactory evidence that the purchase was made within the previous 36 hours, or that despite changing planes as part of a single journey the passenger has remained at all times, in the airport operating area or on board the aircraft),
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O a (new) Oa. whereas cargo and mail are loaded onto passenger planes and therefore present a target for terrorist attacks, taken into account that security control for cargo and mail is much lower than for passengers, security measures must me tightened for mail and cargo which is loaded onboard of passenger planes,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas qualification, satisfactory social standards and training for security staff
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas initial and further training for security staff is a crucial element that is necessary in order to guarantee a high level of aviation security, which must be compatible with a way of treating passengers that preserves their dignity as individuals,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas training for security staff is a crucial element that is necessary in order to guarantee a high level of aviation security, which must be compatible with a way of treating passengers that preserves their dignity as individuals and protects their personal data,
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S a (new) Sa. whereas good working conditions and secure standard employment contracts have a positive effect on the quality of security checks; whereas most airport operators in the EU get outside companies to carry out security checks in order to save on wage costs,
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Takes the view that the protection of personal data cannot be guaranteed at all times and in all respects;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to research on the use of other techniques to detect explosives in the field of aviation security;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas a number of Member States are currently using
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop an integrated risk- analysis system, making use in particular of profiling, for suspicious passengers and for checks on luggage and cargo, based on all available information, in particular the information provided by the police, intelligence services, customs and transport undertakings; takes the view that the entire system should be informed by the search for effectiveness, but based on respect for the principle of non-discrimination;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop an integrated risk- analysis system for
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop an integrated risk- analysis system for
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Encourages the Commission while proposing a review of the Directive 96/67/EC on Groundhandling Services at EU Airports, to integrate efficient criteria for the employed in the field of security services at airports on their qualification, regular education, experience and social status; stresses the need to support and promote better security networking, management and motivation within the personal;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Acknowledges the importance of security scanners as an additional tool to protect the travelling public, but emphasises the fundamental importance of making proper use of cross-border intelligence, monitoring central reservation systems and passenger profiling in identifying potential terrorists threats;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Stresses that in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan any form of profiling based on, for example, sex, race, colour, ethnicity, genetic features, language, religion or belief is unacceptable;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure effective cooperation, security management and exchange of information among all the authorities and services involved, and between the authorities, security and air transport undertakings, at both European and national level;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission regularly to revise the list of authorised screening methods and the conditions for their implementation, in line with possible problems, experienced in practise, and technological progress, in order to provide a high level of detection performance and passengers and workers rights and interests in keeping with that progress;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission regularly to revise the list of authorised screening methods and the conditions and minimum standards for their implementation, in line with technological progress, in order to provide a high level of detection performance in keeping with that progress;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas air travel security measures are also used in other places such as stations, museums or public libraries; whereas people would face more of the inconveniences and dangers of security scanners in their daily lives, if these were to be introduced for air travel;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that airport operators only employ their own staff on secure standard employment contracts to conduct security checks, so that no outside companies may be used for this key sector of air safety;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls that security scanners at airports offer a reliable and effective screening method and a real possibility to reinforce passenger security;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to draw up a set of common EU rules to ensure the adequate implementation of security measures;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to propose adding security scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, with scanners chosen that are not harmful to the health of the European public, together with appropriate rules for their use, as set out in this resolution;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to propose adding security scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, together with appropriate rules and common minimum standards for their use, as set
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission, only after carrying out an impact survey to show that the devices do not constitute a risk to passenger health, personal data, the individual dignity and privacy of passengers or effectiveness, to propose adding security scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, together with appropriate rules for their use, as set out in this resolution;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers that the acceptance and certification of security scanners should only be given after a comprehensive study made by the responsible authorities;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas Member States are entitled to
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of security scanners must be based on common rules that not only lay down detection performance but also impose the necessary safeguards to
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of security scanners must be based on common rules that not only lay down detection performance but also impose the necessary safeguards to protect the health and fundamental rights of passengers and workers
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of security scanners must be
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the eventual decision on the use of security scanners must be based on common rules that not only lay down detection performance but also impose the necessary safeguards to protect the health and fundamental rights of passengers and workers;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of security scanners must be based on common rules, procedures and standards that not only lay down detection performance but also impose the necessary safeguards to protect the health and fundamental rights of passengers and workers;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Believes that the use of security scanners
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Believes that security scanners should be an instrument to speed up the pace and tempo of checks at airports and reduce inconvenience to passengers, and thus calls on the Commission to take this aspect into account in its proposed legislation;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers that luggage scanners should also be subject to EU common standards, especially regarding the radiation limits, since they afterwards come in direct contact with people;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the rules on the use of security scanners to ensure that the provisions on the protection of health and fundamental rights are adapted to technological progress, with the proviso that the use of scanners using ionising radiation should be prohibited;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas Member States are entitled to apply more stringent measures than the common basic standards required by European legislation and may thus
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the rules on the use of
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the rules on the use of security scanners to ensure that the provisions on the protection of health, privacy, personal data and fundamental rights are adapted to technological progress;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes,
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the rules on the use of security scanners to ensure that the provisions on the protection of health safety, transparency and fundamental rights are
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the introduction of
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non- metallic objects and liquids, whilst frisking (full hand-search)
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non- metallic objects and liquids
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non- metallic objects and liquids, whilst frisking (full hand-search) causes more irritation and is more likely to be rejected than a scanner; points out, however, that security scanners do not solve the problem of unauthorised items when these are concealed in body cavities or inside the body;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non- metallic objects and liquids, whilst frisking (full hand-search) causes more irritation and time loss and is more likely to be rejected than a scanner;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is potentially higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non-
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes the view that the eventual use of security scanners does not negatively affect the overall level of security being attained as stated in annex 12.8.1 (b) of Regulation 185/2010, thus not going
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes the view that the use of security scanners does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of security, provided that the appropriate safeguards are guaranteed and taking into account that less demanding methods would not provide a similar degree of
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes the view that the use of security scanners does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of security, provided that the appropriate safeguards are guaranteed and taking into account that less demanding methods would not provide a similar degree of protection; recalls that in aviation security, the use of intelligence in a broad sense and well educated airport security staff should remain our core priorities.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the eventual introduction of security scanners on a voluntary and experimental basis by the Member States in either of the above two cases makes genuine one-
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes the view that the use of security scanners
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that concerns and demands regarding privacy and health cannot be resolved with the technology and methods available; considers that the technology now being developed is
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that concerns and demands regarding privacy and health can be resolved with the technology and methods available; considers that the technology now being developed is promising and that the best available technology
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Takes the view that the installation of
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Takes the view that the installation of security scanners, or the decision not to install them, falls within the responsibility and freedom of decision of the EU Member States; considers, however, that further harmonisation of the use of scanners is needed in order to create a coherent European aviation security area;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Takes the view that the installation of security scanners, or the decision not to install them, falls within the responsibility and freedom of decision of the EU Member States, taking into account the Regulation 185/2010 provisions concerning the European Commission right of assessment and authorisation of introducing new technologies as stated in annex 12.8;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that where an EU Member State decides to install
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Takes the view that whe
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Considers that Member States should supplement control points and security staff in order to ensure that passengers are not affected by the instalment of security scanners;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas the discussion about security scanners should not be held outside of the general debate on an integrated overall security policy for Europe’s airports;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Takes the view that passengers should be given a choice in using
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Takes the view that passengers
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Takes the view that passengers should be given a choice in using security
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Calls on the Member States to deploy technology which is the least harmful for human health and which offers acceptable solutions to the public's privacy concerns;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Takes the view that the rules for the effective operation of security scanners must pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and to people who are frequently exposed to radiation, who could be passengers, crew or security staff;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Takes the view that the rules for the effective operation of security scanners must pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and to people who are frequently
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Takes the view that the rules for the effective operation of security scanners must pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and to people who are frequently exposed to radiation especially when considering the maximum allowed radiation limit;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable
source: PE-460.986
2011/03/25
LIBE
89 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of dissuasion and prevention in the fight against terrorism and supports in this only the use of legitimate means, which are necessary in a free and open democratic society; recalls that the confidence of citizens in their institutions is essential and that there must therefore be a fair balance between the need to ensure security and a guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that any counterterrorism measure should therefore be in full
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that any counterterrorism measure should therefore be in full accordance with the fundamental rights and obligations of the European Union Member States, which are necessary in a democratic society and must be proportionate, prescribed by law and thus delimited within the specific aim it wishes to achieve;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Urges in this regard for the aim to be achieved to be precisely and duly specified; calls for an extensive technical assessment to be carried out regarding the usefulness of body scanners; urges furthermore to prohibit the use of body scanners in case of any ambiguous or non-positive assessment;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recalls that the use of body scanners must comply with Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that only few Member States have carried out trials of body scanners1 and many of these have abandoned body scanners subsequently, due to the high costs, delays and inefficacy2, while most of the Member States have not deployed body scanners or have opposed or affirmed that they do not intend to buy, deploy and use of body scanners; 1 UK, NL, DE, DK. 2 IT and FIN.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Notes that, regardless of the inclusion of body scanners in the list of methods of screening allowed, those Member States already using body scanners are bound to ensure that citizens’ fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are respected, protected and promoted, notably the right to privacy and to health, as furthermore requested by the European Parliament;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Highlights that those Member States that used body scanners have excluded some categories of vulnerable persons, such as children, pregnant woman, elderly people and persons with disabilities or with implanted medical devices and workers who are frequently exposed to radiations, and that common rules in this field shall be applied at EU level when Member States deploy and use body scanners;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Believes that body scanners should only be used by those Member States that decided or will decide to deploy them, on an ad hoc basis, and for those flights were there are reasons to believe that security is at stake, for instance on the basis of intelligence information, of specific risks or threats, of the country of destination of the flights (if the country of destination requested body scanning of the passengers for specific security reasons) or of origin (if the country of origin is targeted by terrorist groups); believes that body scanners should not be used for intra-EU flights;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 f (new) 2f. Calls the Commission not to add body scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, as this would create an incentive for the use of body scanners at national level, but calls it to issue instead binding recommendations to Member States in relation to the rules for the use of body scanners, shall they decide to continue trials or apply more stringent measures in relation to the use of body scanners in aviation security;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism, and
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 g (new) 2g. Calls for a in depth analysis, evaluation and review of current security situation and procedures at airports, including the liquids regulation, and for an anticipation of the timetable related to the suspension of the ban on liquids and of the conditions foreseen in relation to the availability of screening technologies, while questioning the efficacy and high costs of the future procedures for systematic screening of liquids;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 h (new) 2h. Believes that the comitology procedure in the aviation security sector, at least for measures having an impact on citizens' rights, is inappropriate and calls for the EP to be fully involved through co- decision;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points to the fact that the use of body scanners is not restricted only to airports but also to other public places;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Points to the fact that the use of body
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 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) 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) 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 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism and
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every body 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 and side effects liable to aggravate or retrigger diseases or conditions; calls in this regard for any form of x-ray technology to be explicitly excluded from the permissible screening methods list;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every body 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
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every body 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 to the passenger, including long-
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every body 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
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls for every body 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 screening methods list at the current stage of technology;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Insists furthermore that body scanners should only be equipped with technology that does not enable any possibility of rendering full body images but merely standardised gender-neutral ‘stick figure’ images that are fully anonymised, and that no data processing or data storage should be possible; points out that staff responsible for the storage of processed date should be held criminally responsible for their actions;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Insists furthermore that body scanners should only be equipped with technology that does not enable any possibility of rendering full body images but merely standardised gender-neutral ‘stick figure’ images that are fully anonymised, and that
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism and supports in this only the use of legitimate means, which are necessary in a free and open democratic society, but recalls that there is still no definitive proof of the effectiveness of such a procedure;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to impose deterrent sanctions for unauthorized recording or distribution of security screening images;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls for periodic technical controls to be carried out by a competent organisation to review the devices' integrity and their compliance with the conditions laid out in paragraphs 4 and 5;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 43 #
5a. Points out that the obtaining of images will have to comply with the requirements laid down in Community legislation on the protection of personal data;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that there is sufficient proof to suggest that body scanners cause seriousness diseases, such as cancer; consequently, in accordance with the precautionary principle, believes that their use in the European Union must be prohibited until in-depth studies have been conducted on the real health risks occasioned by exposure to the radiation emitted by different types of body scanner;
Amendment 45 #
6. Stresses that every person
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that every person should have the right to refuse a body scan, without the obligation to give any explanation, and the right to request a standard security check, with full respect for the rights and dignity of that person; insists that particular attention be paid to vulnerable people such as pregnant women, children, disabled persons or people suffering from illnesses which make this kind of check inappropriate; calls in this regard for all security personnel to receive proper, extensive training;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that every p
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that every person should have the right to refuse a body scan, without the obligation to give any explanation, and the right to request a standard security check, with full respect for the rights and dignity of that person; calls in this regard for all security personnel to receive proper, extensive training; calls on the Commission to propose alternative methods of body scanning, bearing in mind that everyone has the right to refuse to undergo this type of scanning;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that every person
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism and supports
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that every person
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that current security procedures at airports do not include full searching of the body;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan, any form of profiling based on, for example, sex, race, colour, ethnicity, national origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief is unacceptable;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan, any form of profiling based on, for example, sex, race, colour, ethnicity,
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that the reasons stated for refus
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned or give rise to such inconvenience as long waits or detailed searches and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan, any form of profiling based on,
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan, any form of
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that refusal to undergo a body scan should not constitute ipso facto any suspicion of the person concerned and that, in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan,
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Points out that the operating rules must ensure that the selection of people for security scanning cannot be based on criteria relating to sex, race, colour, ethnicity, genetic features, language, religion or belief;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls for people who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be fully, properly and comprehensibly informed about
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism and supports in this only the use of legitimate means
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion 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
Amendment 61 #
Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls for p
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls for
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion 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 and their right to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security check; recalls that the training of airport security personnel is a basic necessity;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls for people who are willing to be submitted to a body scan to be properly and comprehensibly informed in advance about the body scanner, including their right to refuse to be submitted to a body scan and their right to complain and seek redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security check;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion 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 and their right to complain and seek an effective legal redress in case of perceived irregularities related to the body scan or their refusal to be submitted to it and the subsequent standard security check;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Recognises the right of passengers to complain about any irregularity that might arise from security checks carried out using both security scanners and other alternative means, in cases where passengers did not wish to submit to a security scan;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines the importance of penalties for any instances of misuse of body scanner images;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners, especially with a view to the principles of proportionality and necessity, and the possible health risks, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism and supports in this only the use of legitimate and proportionate means, which are necessary in a free and open democratic society;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in a proportionality test and an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and the possible health risks of passengers and staff submitted to frequent checks in the course of their work, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified in an impact assessment covering inter alia the fundamental rights aspect of body scanners and the possible health risks; calls on the Commission to provide conclusive studies on the possible impact of security scanners on the health of passengers and members of staff who undergo regular checks, taking into account the opinions of the European Union, international and national human rights and data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening 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 data protection authorities, such as the EDPS, the FRA and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism; considers that such a proposal should also foresee a long term monitoring and evaluation on body scanners, taking into account the development of new technologies;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening method should be extensively justified
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that any proposal to allow the deployment and use of body scanners as a permissible screening 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
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that the technical specifications of the European Civil Aviation Conference Technical Task Force, and the vendor contracts for body scanners should be declassified and made publicly available;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Considers that the decision to use body scanners in airports should not be mandatory for Member States; stresses that if a Member State chooses to deploy body scanners in its airports, those body scanners should meet the minimum standards and requirements set at EU level;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that the objectives and the expected value of the use of body scanners must be clearly defined;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to raise the issue of the use of body scanners in the appropriate international bodies, as fight against terrorism is a global challenge and aviation security has to be pursued beyond European borders;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Recommends that every passenger’s ticket show the cost of security measures;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion 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 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Underlines that those Member States which decide to use body scanners should be able, under the principle of subsidiarity, to apply more rigid standards than those defined in the European legislation on the protection of citizens and their personal data;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Expects that the Commission will base its proposal on extensive independent and objective scientific information gathered among EU experts in the field and without interferences from the industry sector, Member States governments and third countries;
Amendment 85 #
Paragraph 10 Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Asks the Commission to explore alternatives to the use of body scanners, taking into account other measures already in use for detecting aviation security threats, demonstrating the need to replace current airport security monitoring measures by these scanners;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion 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) 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 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls the Commission, the Council and Committee responsible to substitute the words ‘security scanner(s)’ with the words ‘body scanner(s)’ where the scanners are used to screen persons, including in the title of the report, hereby avoiding inappropriate and unnecessary confusions and ambiguities;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
source: PE-460.651
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/6 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE452.692&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AD-452692_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE450.741New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TRAN-PR-450741_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE460.986New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TRAN-AM-460986_EN.html |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE458.487&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-458487_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0216_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0216_EN.html |
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110705&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2010-07-05-TOC_EN.html |
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-216&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0216_EN.html |
docs/5/body |
EC
|
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-216&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0216_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-329New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0329_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
TRAN/7/03639New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2010/0311/COM_COM(2010)0311_EN.pdfNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2010/0311/COM_COM(2010)0311_EN.pdf |
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fc92ed1d1c51621000000New
4f1ac8a0b819f25efd0000e4 |
activities/1/committees/2/shadows/3/mepref |
Old
545fc40ad1d1c50406000000New
4f1ac762b819f25efd000084 |
activities/2/committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fc92ed1d1c51621000000New
4f1ac8a0b819f25efd0000e4 |
activities/2/committees/2/shadows/3/mepref |
Old
545fc40ad1d1c50406000000New
4f1ac762b819f25efd000084 |
committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
545fc92ed1d1c51621000000New
4f1ac8a0b819f25efd0000e4 |
committees/2/shadows/3/mepref |
Old
545fc40ad1d1c50406000000New
4f1ac762b819f25efd000084 |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|