5 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 7 December 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 2 (24 June 2009), HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 4 (21 July 2009) and HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 4 (10 September 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 17-18 December 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 updated legislation establishing
common standards for civil aviation security and creating a system
of inspections.[18] 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. [19]
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.[20]
5.2 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.
5.3 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.
5.4 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.
5.5 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.
5.6 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 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 consider 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.
5.7 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.
5.8 When we last considered the matter, in September
2009, we heard that:
- the working group considered
the draft Directive in detail on 10 and 23 July 2009;
- 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, which the Government
very much supported, included insertion of text which clarified
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;
- this amendment dealt 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);
- the Government was not yet in a position to report
any developments on its preference for 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),
as these elements of the proposal had not yet been substantively
discussed at the working group;
- Working Group discussion was scheduled to continue
on 10 and 24 September 2009 when the Government was expecting
issues such as the possibility of alignment with the Airport Charges
Directive, which a number of Member States were interested in,
to be covered;
- 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 Government hoped
that working group discussions on the scope and a potential applicability
threshold would go a large way to reducing any potential impact
on these airports;
- while the Government did not consider that the
proposed Directive would have a significant effect on charges
levied by UK airports, it did consider that there were 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 were less market based
or had limited regulation, and it therefore might help to drive
down costs;
- the Government's principal concern in the negotiations
had been to ensure that Member States' ability to put in place
More Stringent Measures swiftly should not be restricted and this
point had now been resolved;
- there were 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 hoped to be able
to secure a general approach, would depend on the planned further
working group discussions as well as on stakeholder responses
received as a part of the public consultation (which was not closing
until 27 September 2009); and
- the Presidency's aim to resolve the outstanding
issues in time to achieve a general approach at the forthcoming
Council was ambitious, but it was possible that a position would
be reached by then which was acceptable to the majority of Member
States and which the Government would wish to support.
5.9 We noted 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, we commented that:
- whilst we recognised the case
the Government was making for the likely utility of this proposal,
if amended satisfactorily in all the aspects drawn to our attention,
we felt the prospect of such comprehensive amendment was not,
as yet, sufficiently secure as to allow us to clear the document
from scrutiny — so the document would continue to remain
under scrutiny; and
- we did not wish the Government to agree to a
general approach until we had had the opportunity to consider
a further report, detailing a more certain outcome of the negotiations,
(and to even consider whether a debate might be necessary).[21]
The Minister's letter
5.10 In the event a general approach on this draft
Directive was not adopted at the October 2009 Transport Council
and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport (Paul Clark), writes to tell us where matters now stand
on this proposal. He says that:
- it is now looking likely that
a general approach will be sought at the Transport Council on
17-18 December 2009; and
- there are still a number of issues, however,
that Member States were not able to resolve in the working group,
so it is possible that after the proposal is discussed at COREPER
on 9 December 2009 it may only be the subject of a progress report.
5.11 Turning to the substance the Minister:
- says that the Working Group
has considered the proposal in detail at a number of meetings
over the last few months, most recently on 3 December 2009;
- recalls that earlier negotiations had included
the insertion of text which clarifies that a Member State does
not need to do an impact assessment where More Stringent Measures
target a specific threat and are intended to be of limited duration
and that the Government welcomed this sensible approach;
- reports that 23 organisations responded to the
Government's consultation, that the Government's analysis and
response are still in preparation but that what is clear is that
airlines in particular would welcome transparency of charges,
smaller airports expressed concern at the administrative burdens
they would face if the qualifying threshold was to be below five
million passenger movements and impact assessments for More Stringent
Measures were broadly welcomed;
- continues that in relation to the Government's
concerns about the potential impact on small airports, including
those in the Highlands and Islands, the smaller airports and representative
organisations also raised concerns about the costs of implementing
the proposed Directive in their responses to the consultation;
- says that at a recent Working Group meeting the
Presidency indicated that it is minded to align the scope of the
proposal with the Airport Charges Directive, that is a five million
passengers per annum threshold, but unlike that Directive not
to include the largest airport in a Member State if no airport
exceeds five million passenger movements; and
- comments that the Government welcomes this change
as it brings the provision largely into line with the Airport
Charges Directive and smaller airports, such as those in the Highlands
and Islands, would not be covered by the proposed Directive.
5.12 The Minister then says that:
- the Government's principal
security concern in the negotiations was to ensure that Member
States' ability to swiftly put in place More Stringent Measures
should not be restricted and this point has now been addressed
in the revised text;
- there are, however, a number of issues still
to be addressed, there is still no consensus among Member States
and many questions remain unresolved;
- there would be a further discussion of the proposal
at COREPER on 9 December 2009 and by Ministers at the Transport
Council itself later in the month;
- the Government thinks that the proposal still
requires significant further work and that it is not ready for
a general approach;
- it has made these points strongly to the Presidency
— nevertheless, the Presidency still hopes that it will
be possible to reach a general approach at the Council;
- the Government intends, therefore to take the
line that any agreement needs to ensure a genuine level playing
field in all Member States, that the appeals mechanism should
be aligned with that in the Airport Charges Directive and that
provisions on cost-relatedness should strike a fair balance between
passengers and airport operators; and
- unless these issues can be resolved at the COREPER
meeting or at the Council itself the Government is minded to inform
the Council that it abstains from any agreement to a general approach.
5.13 Finally the Minister tells us that:
- the European Parliament held
its first discussion of this proposal at a TRAN Committee meeting
on 10 November 2009 and the Rapporteur is to report back in January
2010;
- the Committee's main concern was that the proposed
Directive did not include any proposals on the financing of aviation
security measures by Member States; and
- as noted previously the Government's position
on this is that the user should continue to pay.
Conclusion
5.14 We are grateful for the Minister's latest
account of where matters stand on this draft Directive. We note
the helpful improvements to the proposal already secured. But
we note also that there are issues still outstanding that mean
the Government would not yet wish to acquiesce in a general agreement
— a position which we applaud. We are not now minded to
recommend the draft Directive for debate. But before considering
the matter again we wish to hear of further improvements to the
draft text — meanwhile the document continues to remain
under scrutiny.
18 (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
19
(30429) 6074/09: see HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 14 (18 March
2009). Back
20
(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
21
See headnote. Back
|
