4 Aviation security charges
| (30645)
9864/09
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(09) 217
| Draft Directive on aviation security charges
|
| Legal base | Article 80(02) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 15 July 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 2 (24 June 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Possibly 8-9 October 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 updated legislation establishing
common standards for civil aviation security and creating a system
of inspections.[11] During
the conciliation procedure before adoption of the Regulation the
European Parliament requested that the Commission report on the
principles of financing the costs of civil aviation security measures,
and on adoption of the Regulation the Commission undertook to
do this. In February 2009 the Commission published such a Report
and indicated that it would continue preparing a legislative proposal
based on the assessment in it. [12]
In March 2009 Directive (EC) No 12/2009 on airport charges in
general (the Airport Charges Directive) was adopted. However the
question of security charges was not addressed during the negotiation
of this Directive, as the findings of the Commission's Report
were still awaited.[13]
4.2 In May 2009 the Commission presented this draft
Directive on aviation security charges which would require:
- airport managing bodies to
provide each user annually with information on the components
serving as a basis for determining the level of all security charges
levied at an airport;
- Member States to undertake impact assessments
for all new and current measures that are more stringent (referred
to as More Stringent Measures) than the standard Community-wide
requirements;
- Member States to ensure that security charges
are used exclusively to meet security costs; and
- Member States to nominate or establish an independent
body to ensure the correct application of these measures.
4.3 The Airport Charges Directive sets out principles
for how airports should set airport charges and their relationship
with airports. It covers many of the same areas mentioned in the
draft Directive, such as non-discrimination, consultation requirements,
providing information about underlying costs and how charges are
set and a right of appeal to a regulator. However, the draft Directive
differs from the Airport Charges Directive in a number of ways,
including that:
- the Airport Charges Directive
only covers airports with an annual traffic of five million or
more passenger movements, but there is no size threshold in this
proposal; and
- the Airport Charges Directive allows multi-annual
agreements whereas this proposal requires annual agreements.
4.4 When we considered this document in June 2009
we noted that:
- the Government welcomed the
broad thrust of the Commission's Report on aviation security charges;
- it was still considering the policy and operational
implications of the draft Directive, including whether it conformed
to the subsidiarity principle;
- however, it already had concerns about some of
the provisions in the draft Directive;
- it would be seeking clarification from the Commission
on the various issues and the views of stakeholders to inform
its negotiating position; and
- it was still analysing the Commission's impact
assessment and considering the financial implications for the
UK.
4.5 We concluded that although the matter of aviation
security charges clearly had to be addressed, this draft Directive
presented some problems. So we asked, before considering it further,
to hear from the Government about developments on:
- its view of subsidiarity;
- More Stringent Measures;
- the differences between the Airport Charges Directive
and this proposal;
- the potential impact on small airports;
- separately identified security charges;
- the Government's analysis of the Commission's
impact assessment and of the financial implications of the proposal;
and
- its consultations.
Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.[14]
The Minister's letter
4.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Paul Clark), writes now, because, as the Swedish
Presidency continues to seek a General Approach on the proposal
at the October 2009 Transport Council, he wishes to give us as
much information as he could at this stage. The Minister first
reports that at the June 2009 Transport Council, during discussion
following a Commission presentation on the draft Directive, the
Government outlined its wishes for the proposal:
- the charging elements of the
proposed Directive to match those in the Airport Charges Directive
as closely as possible;
- to be sure that Member States' ability to swiftly
impose More Stringent Measures when the situation demands it is
in no way restricted; and
- to make sure the proposal is line with subsidiarity
and proportionality principles and would not cause unnecessary
administrative burdens on public authorities and private businesses.
4.7 The Minister continues that, at an initial presentation
of the proposal by the Commission to the Council Aviation Working
Group on 2 July 2009:
- it was clear that many Member
States are, at present, unenthusiastic about aspects of the proposal;
and
- the Government flagged up some key questions
about what the costs and benefits of the proposal would be and
whether it would be more appropriate to amend the existing Airport
Charges Directive.
4.8 The Minister then tells us about the Government's
consideration of the detail of the proposal, saying that:
- the Government is working closely
with the Civil Aviation Authority and involving other industry
stakeholders and the Devolved Administrations;
- it is seeking detailed views from UK stakeholders
through a public consultation over the 2009 summer;
- in the meantime its approach at the next Working
Group meetings will be to continue to ask key questions and pursue
in more detail the headline messages that the Government gave
at the June 2009 Transport Council; and
- the Government considers it important to continue
to emphasise that "the user pays principle" applies
to aviation security measures.
4.9 Turning to costs and impact assessment the Minister
says that:
- it is not possible to quantify
the security requirements imposed on the aviation industry in
financial terms;
- that said, the Government recognises that security
measures must be proportionate to the changing threat, which is
why they are subject to continuous review and why it continues
to consult the aviation industry to ensure that measures are proportionate
and appropriate;
- the Government is finalising an initial, partial
impact assessment as part of the public consultation package;
and
- it expects, however, that a fuller understanding
of the exact impacts will not be possible until the consultation
is underway.
Conclusion
4.10 We are grateful for the Minister's interim
account of where matters stand on this draft Directive. However
we will not be able to give more detailed attention to the document
until he is able to respond more fully to the points we raised
in our earlier report. Meanwhile the document continues
to remain under scrutiny.
11 (26861) 12588/05: see HC 34-viii (2005-06), chapter
4 (2 November 2005), HC 34-xv (2005-06), chapter 2 (18 January
2006) and HC 34-xxi (2005-06), chapter 1 (8 March 2006) and Stg
Co Deb, European Standing Committee, 7 March 2006, cols 3-16. Back
12
(30429) 6074/09: see HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 14 (18 March
2009). Back
13
(28346) 5887/07 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 41-xi (2006-07), chapter 3
(28 February 2007), HC 16-ii (2007-08), chapter 4 (14 November
2007) and HC 16-iv (2007-08), chapter 22 (28 November 2007). Back
14
See headnote. Back
|
