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 3 September 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 2 (24 June 2009) and HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 4 (21 July 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 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.[13] 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. [14]
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.[15]
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.
4.6 When we considered the matter again, in July
2009, we heard, in an interim report, 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, certainty that Member States' ability to swiftly impose
More Stringent Measures when the situation demanded it was in
no way restricted and for the proposal to be line with subsidiarity
and proportionality principles and not cause unnecessary administrative
burdens on public authorities and private businesses;
- 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 were 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;
- in relation to the Government's consideration
of the detail of the proposal, it was working closely with the
Civil Aviation Authority and involving other industry stakeholders
and the Devolved Administrations, it was seeking detailed views
from UK stakeholders through a public consultation over the 2009
summer, in the meantime its approach at the Working Group meetings
would be to continue to ask key questions and to pursue in more
detail the headline messages that it gave at the June 2009 Transport
Council and it considered it important to continue to emphasise
that "the user pays principle" applies to aviation security
measures;
- in relation to costs and impact assessment, it
was not possible to quantify the security requirements imposed
on the aviation industry in financial terms, but the Government
recognised that security measures must be proportionate to the
changing threat, which was why they are subject to continuous
review and why it was continuing to consult the aviation industry
to ensure that measures were proportionate and appropriate, it
was finalising an initial, partial impact assessment as part of
a public consultation package and it expected, however, that a
fuller understanding of the exact impacts would not be possible
until the consultation was underway.
4.7 We commented that, although grateful for the
interim account of where matters stood on the draft Directive,
we would not be able to give more detailed attention to the document
until the Government was able to respond more fully to the points
we had raised in our earlier report. Meanwhile the document continued
to remain under scrutiny.[16]
The Minister's letter
4.8 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Paul Clark), writes now with a further account
of where matters on this proposal. The Minister first reports
that the Working Group considered the draft Directive in detail
on 10 and 23 July 2009 and tells us that:
- after the first detailed discussion
the Swedish Presidency agreed to consider and put forward some
initial drafting suggestions regarding references to an 'airport
managing body' and impact assessments for More Stringent Measures;
- one of the suggestions included the insertion
of text which clarifies the right of Member States to take emergency
measures on the basis of imminent and identified threats without
the need to carry out an impact assessment first;
- the Government very much supports this sensible
approach as it was previously concerned that the draft Directive
would limit the ability of a Member State to swiftly counter an
immediate threat and put in place any necessary security measures
needed in order to protect the travelling public; and
- this amendment deals with the Government's main
reason for its subsidiarity concerns (and it was not the only
Member State to have raised a concern about the original text).
4.9 Recalling that the Government would prefer the
charging elements of the proposed Directive to match those of
the Airport Charges Directive as closely as possible (the proposal
differs in terms of scope and the proposed transparency and consultation
requirements), the Minister says that the Government is not yet
in a position to report any developments on this issue as these
elements of the proposal have not yet been substantively discussed
at the Working Group. Working Group discussion is scheduled to
continue on 10 and 24 September 2009 when the Government is expecting
issues such as the possibility of alignment with the Airport Charges
Directive, in which a number of Member States were interested,
to be covered.
4.10 Turning to the Government's public consultation
package, including an initial impact assessment (copies of both
of which he attaches), the Minister says that:
- this was issued to all relevant
stakeholders and published on the Department's website[17]
on 21 July 2009;
- given the speed of negotiations, and to assist
those consulted, the Government intends to hold a stakeholder
information event on 7 September 2009;
- the consultation period formally closes on 25
September 2009; and
- the initial impact assessment notes that, although
transparency is not obligatory for security charging in the UK,
many airports do levy a separate security charge at a published
rate.
4.11 On the transparency of security charges the
Minister comments further, on the basis of the impact assessment,
that:
- of the airports which do levy
a separate security charge at a published rate the most significant
are Manchester and Luton, with the notable exceptions being the
BAA airports;
- as the UK airport market is largely privatised
the Government believes that competition between private companies
is a better way than regulation to exert downward pressure on
prices for the benefit of consumers;
- in the absence of competition and where significant
monopoly power exists, regulation is, however, seen as necessary
— the Civil Aviation Authority performs this role, currently
regulating airport charges at three airports — Heathrow,
Gatwick and Stansted;
- for the non-price regulated airports, competition
between airports ensures that the overall airport charges on airlines
are as low as possible;
- airlines can then find the best airports for
their needs, for example considering location and accessibility
as well as the level of airport charge;
- in this respect the security charge element of
airport charging should not be regarded any differently to other
aspects of cost recovery;
- for privatised and non-price regulated airports
the draft Directive's requirement for cost-relatedness in respect
of the security charging element may have the effect of increasing
the charge on other elements of airport service to maintain the
overall level of charge, as private firms look to maintain profits;
- the presence of competition and the potential
for regulatory involvement dictate, however, that the level of
profit will not be excessive; and
- for the price-regulated airports, the regulator
already requires that aggregate income and expenditure attributable
to the levying of airport charges and operational activities is
disclosed through operational accounts, which is taken into account
in the setting of price controls.
4.12 In relation to the Government's concerns about
the potential impact on small airports, including those in the
Highlands and Islands, of the draft Directive the Minister says
that the Government hopes that the Working Group discussions this
month on the scope and a potential applicability threshold will
go a large way to reducing any potential impact on these airports.
4.13 The Minister concludes by saying that:
- while the Government does not
consider that the proposed Directive will have a significant effect
on charges levied by UK airports, it does consider that there
are potential benefits for UK airlines operating out of other
Community airports and consequently for UK passengers;
- the proposal could bring greater visibility of
charges, especially in countries which are less market based or
have limited regulation, and it therefore may help to drive down
costs;
- the Government's principal concern in the negotiations
has been to ensure that Member States' ability to put in place
More Stringent Measures swiftly should not be restricted and this
point has now been resolved;
- there are further issues still to be discussed
and the Government's final view on the proposal ahead of the October
2009 Transport Council, at which the Presidency hopes to be able
to secure a general approach, will depend on the further Working
Group discussions this month (which it hopes will include responses
from the Commission to some of the high-level questions it, and
other Member States, have asked) as well as on stakeholder responses
received as a part of the public consultation;
- the Presidency's aim to resolve the outstanding
issues in time to achieve a general approach at the forthcoming
Council is ambitious, but it is possible that a position will
be reached by then which is acceptable to the majority of Member
States and which the Government would wish to support; and
- the Government regrets that the timetable means
that it will not be possible for us to consider a further update
on negotiations before the Council takes place.
Conclusion
4.14 We are grateful for the Minister's further
account of where matters stand on this draft Directive and we
note that the Government might wish to support a general approach
at the Transport Council on 9 October 2009, if such a stage, which
the Government considers reasonable, is reached. However, whilst
we recognise the case the Government makes for the likely utility
of this proposal, if amended satisfactorily in all the aspects
the Minister has drawn to our attention, we feel the prospect
of such comprehensive amendment is not, as yet, sufficiently secure
as to allow us to clear the document from scrutiny.
4.15 So the document will continue to remain under
scrutiny. And we do not wish the Government to agree to a general
approach until we have had the opportunity to consider a further
report, detailing a more certain outcome of the negotiations,
so that we may consider whether a debate might be necessary.
13 (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
14
(30429) 6074/09: see HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 14 (18 March
2009). Back
15
(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
16
See headnote. Back
17
See http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/aviation-security-charges/.
Back
|
