4 Aviation security charges
| (30645)
9864/09
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(09) 217
| Draft Directive on aviation security charges
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 29 July 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 2 (24 June 2009), HC 19-xxv (2008-09), chapter 4 (21 July 2009), HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 4 (10 September 2009), HC 5-iii (2009-10), chapter 5 (9 December 2009) and HC 5-xiii (2009-10), chapter 1 (10 March 2010)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date known
|
| 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.[8] In March
2009 Directive (EC) No 12/2009 on airport charges in general (the
Airport Charges Directive) was adopted.[9]
However the question of charges related to security was not addressed
during the negotiation of this Directive, as the findings of a
Commission report were still awaited. This report, when it emerged,
suggested that draft legislation was in preparation.[10]
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 The previous Committee considered this document
a number of times. On the first occasion, in June 2009, it concluded
that although the matter of aviation security charges clearly
had to be addressed, this draft Directive presented some problems.
So it asked, before considering it further, to hear from the then
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.
4.5 By the time the previous Committee further
considered the matter, in December 2009, it had already heard
that Council working party negotiations had led to revised text
which answered the Government's concerns on subsidiarity and More
Stringent Measures. In December 2009 it was told additionally
that:
- it was looking likely that
a general approach would be sought at the Transport Council on
17-18 December 2009; and
- there were still a number of issues, however,
that Member States were not able to resolve in the working group;
- 23 organisations had responded to the Government's
consultation;
- the Government's analysis and response were still
in preparation but what was clear was that airlines in particular
would welcome transparency of charges, smaller airports had expressed
concern at the administrative burdens they would face if the qualifying
threshold were to be below five million passenger movements and
impact assessments for More Stringent Measures were broadly welcomed;
- 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;
- the Swedish Presidency had indicated recently
that it was minded to align the scope of the proposal with the
Airport Charges Directive, that is with a five million passengers
per annum threshold, but unlike that Directive not to include
the largest airport in a Member State if no airport exceeded five
million passenger movements;
- the Government welcomed this change as it brought
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;
- although the Government's principal security
concern in the negotiations had been to ensure that Member States'
ability to swiftly put in place More Stringent Measures should
not be restricted and this point had now been addressed in the
revised text, it thought that the proposal still required significant
further work and that it was not ready for a general approach;
- it had made these points strongly to the Presidency
— nevertheless, the Presidency still hoped that it would
be possible to reach a general approach at the December 2009 Council;
- the Government intended, therefore to take the
line that any agreement needed 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 could be resolved the Government
was minded to inform the Council that it was abstaining from any
agreement to a general approach.
4.6 The previous Committee then noted the helpful
improvements to the proposal already secured. But it noted also
that there were issues still outstanding that meant the then Government
would not yet wish to acquiesce in a general approach —
a position which it applauded. It said that before considering
the matter again it wished to hear of further improvements to
the draft text.
4.7 The previous Committee last considered the
matter in March 2010, when it heard that:
- in the event the Swedish Presidency
concluded that a general approach was not yet possible and the
draft Directive was only the subject of a progress report at the
December 2009 Council;
- the Spanish Presidency has had just one further
working group meeting, the outcome of which was that another progress
report was to be made at the Transport Council in March 2010;
- there had been no substantive changes to the
amendments previously agreed in the working group, in particular
that the measure should only apply to airports handling more than
five million passengers per annum;
- the Presidency was now awaiting the outcome of
the European Parliament's first reading of the proposal before
returning to it;
- the European Parliament had just concluded the
committee stage of its consideration, with the TRAN Committee
voting on a series of amendments to the Commission's original
draft Directive;
- in particular the TRAN Committee favoured applying
the Directive to all commercial airports and requiring Member
States to pay for More Stringent Measures;
- the European Parliament's plenary first reading
was currently scheduled for April 2010;
- responses to a Government consultation had shown
that airports were broadly supportive of the five million threshold
and that airlines welcomed transparency on charges, that most
respondents recognized the need for Member States to be able to
introduce additional security measures in response to an immediate
threat without first having to carry out an impact assessment
and that a majority of respondents were also concerned about the
administrative burdens which could flow from the proposal;
- whilst the then Government continued to consider
that the proposed Directive would not have a significant effect
on charges levied by UK airports, it did consider that there could
be potential benefits for UK airlines operating out of other EU
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 impacts of the proposal, however, remained
far from clear, not least because the Commission's own impact
assessment was based on looking at a very small number of airports
in just one Member State; and
- there would be costs for those airports which
did not separately identify security costs, there would also be
a cost in setting up consultative committees with airlines and
a cost to Government in establishing or nominating an Independent
Supervisory Authority to ensure the correct application of the
proposed requirements;
- the Government could not support the amendment
proposed by the European Parliament, requiring Member States to
pay for More Stringent Measures;
- it remained firmly behind the 'user pays' principle,
as it would be wrong to burden the general taxpayer with these
costs;
- there was still no consensus among Member States
— many questions remained unresolved and would need to be
followed up by the Presidency (including better alignment with
the Airport Charges Directive);
- there was likely to be a further working group
meeting in April 2010, which would need to consider the stance
taken in the European Parliament TRAN Committee and the potential
plenary vote;
- the Government's view was that the proposal still
required significant further work and that it was not ready for
a general approach — points made strongly to the Presidency;
- it was pleased that the item was only on the
March 2010 Transport Council agenda for a further progress report;
and
- if, however, in future the Council proceeded
to discussion of a general approach the Government proposed to
take the line that any agreement needed 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.
4.8 The previous Committee:
- noted both that little progress
had been made in Council consideration of the proposal and the
unhelpful approach of the European Parliament's TRAN Committee;
- applauded the then Government's stance on the
draft Directive — that as the draft Directive presently
stood a general approach was not possible; and
- hoped to hear of further improvements to the
text in due course.
Meanwhile the document continued to remain under
scrutiny. [11]
The Minister's letter
4.9 The Secretary of State, Department for Transport
(Mr Philip Hammond) now reports that:
- the European Parliament's first
reading was completed on 5 May 2010;
- as expected, the key difference between the position
of the European Parliament and that of the Council is that the
former endorsed the view that the proposed Directive should apply
to all commercial airports and that Member States should
pay for More Stringent Measures;
- therefore no first-reading agreement could be
reached between the European Parliament and the Council;
- the Spanish Presidency convened a Council working
group on 16 June 2010 to consider the European Parliament's amendments;
- those discussions only covered some of the amendments
put forward by the European Parliament;
- it was clear, however, that these would cause
problems for the Member States;
- in particular, virtually all Member States were
in favour of the scope of the proposed Directive being restricted
to airports with annual throughputs in excess of five million
as opposed to the Commission's and the European Parliament's desire
to see all airports covered;
- the question of payment for More Stringent Measures
was not discussed;
- the working group did not come to any firm conclusions;
and
- the matter is now for the Belgian Presidency,
which has indicated that it will not be a priority for its term.
4.10 The Minister tells us that:
- the Government's negotiating
position for future discussions of this proposal includes the
need to ensure that Member States continue to have the ability
to swiftly put in place More Stringent Measures, if needed, and
that these should not be restricted;
- with regard to the European Parliament amendment
requiring Member States to pay for More Stringent Measures, it
is firmly behind the 'user pays' principle and considers that
it would be wrong to burden the general taxpayer with these costs;
- it does not support the European Parliament's
and the Commission's desire to include all commercial airports
in this Directive; and
- it believes that to avoid unnecessary administrative
burdens on the industry the Directive should be aligned with the
Airport Charges Directive and only cover airports with annual
throughput of more than five million passengers — in the
UK this would include nine airports, which would cover over 80%
of passengers.
Conclusion
4.11 We are grateful to the Minister for his
account of where matters now stand on this proposal. We note,
and applaud, the Government's intention to continue pursuit of
agreement on a text that is closer to UK needs, in relation to
More Stringent Measures, scope, the 'user pays' principle and
alignment with the Airport Charges Directive. We hope to hear
in due course of progress on these issues. Meanwhile the document
remains under scrutiny.
8 (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
9
(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
10
(30429) 6074/09: see HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 14 (18 March
2009). Back
11
See headnote. Back
|
