Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 29 September 2011 - Strasbourg

5. Security scanners (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement on security scanners.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, ten years after the events of 9/11, the risk of terrorist attacks remains real and aviation is still a preferred target. Airport security scanners are a valid alternative to existing screening methods because they have good detection performance, in particular to deal with the major risk from non-metallic threat items.

The Commission’s draft measure does not impose the deployment of security scanners at EU airports, but allows Member States and airports wishing to do so to deploy security scanners at EU airports under strict minimum EU operational safeguards and detection performance conditions. It only allows the use of non X-ray security scanners. Failure to adopt the rules at European level will mean unilateral actions, and very possibly the US standards being imposed.

Where privacy and data protection are concerned, the use of security scanners raises important issues of privacy and data protection. The Commission fully agrees with Parliament’s objectives in this regard. Our draft measure imposes strict conditions for the use of scanners. These conditions are in line with the advice given by the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and provide all the necessary safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights, privacy and data protection. Passengers must be fully informed about the technology and of the conditions of the security scanning.

Hand searches, which are performed today to detect threat items, are perceived by many to be quite intrusive. The Commission’s draft measure aims to offer passengers and staff an alternative, by going through a security scanner. Two types of scanners currently exist. Both systems ensure compliance with security standards and respect fundamental rights. For example, security scanners shall not store, retain, copy, print or retrieve images.

One type of scanner, which is currently more common, makes use of a human reviewer to determine where possible threat items are to be found. To protect personal data in the use of such scanners, our proposal stipulates that no image can be seen at the security screening point, but is instead remotely analysed by a security officer located elsewhere. In addition, the image cannot be linked to the screened person and must be blurred or obscured to prevent the identification of the face of the passenger. The human reviewers analysing the image cannot see the screened passenger, nor do they have any access to personal data identifying the person. These safeguards address fundamental rights concerns by protecting the person’s dignity and privacy, and guarantee the protection of personal data. Moreover, these are minimum conditions and Member States can impose stricter ones.

The second type of scanner is able to recognise threats automatically. These machines do not produce a real image, but a stick figure which is marked with possible threat items. The Commission shares the view that automated threat detection is the preferred method. It is therefore committed to working closely with the industry and Member States to make sure that, as soon as possible, only such scanners are used. However, if today’s scanners were limited to models using stick figures, the market would be severely restricted, giving undue advantage to a few manufacturers.

Finally, regardless of the type of scanner used, the draft measure gives passengers the possibility to choose not to go through a scanner. No passenger will be forced to use the scanner, as Parliament requested.

Regarding the procedure, while we understand your interest, the Commission does not believe that this draft measure should be adopted through the ordinary legislative procedure. Amendments to the methods of screening fall within the scope of the comitology procedure as established in the existing framework regulation on aviation security.

Let me recall that before presenting this draft, an open and transparent consultation process with all parties involved was conducted, including a public consultation and an impact assessment. The Commission exchanged views regularly with Parliament. We waited for Parliament’s resolution on aviation security of last July before finalising this draft. The current draft measures reflect Parliament’s opinion to the greatest extent possible.

Moreover, in a field like aviation security, decisions need to be taken quickly to respond to a security threat. This is in the passengers’ interest. The ordinary legislative procedure would not be appropriate to achieve this objective. The result would be that Member States would take national measures. The role of the European Union in aviation security, and the ability to set common EU standards, would be diminished.

It is important now to move forward on this file. Parliament, passengers, Member States and the aviation industry have been waiting for a clear position for a long time. A common EU approach to the use of this equipment is the only way to ensure both the highest level of aviation security and the best possible protection of EU citizens’ fundamental rights and health. Common EU rules also overcome the existing fragmented situation.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, as you know, in 2008, Parliament roundly rejected the motion for a resolution that was presented to it. Later, in the same terms, the report that I myself presented to the Chamber was approved by a comfortable majority, with a great consensus and with the effort of the Commission and the political groups.

What were the reasons behind Parliament’s change of mind? Undoubtedly, seeing that all the requirements involved in accepting the use of these scanners were fulfilled, including the preservation of fundamental rights and, among these, in particular, the passenger’s dignity and privacy, non-discrimination, protection of personal data and protection of health.

In this way, we established what type of scanners were suitable for guaranteeing passengers’ security, on the one hand, and preserving their rights in full, on the other. The scanners will not use ionising radiation, they will not be mandatory for Member States, nor for citizens, and they will all protect the rights described above.

True, the Commission has captured all of these concerns in its proposed legislation but, in addition to scanners that use stick figures, it includes the possibility of another type which, whilst guaranteeing the same catalogue of rights, permits the inspection of an image of the passenger, albeit blurred.

We accept the reasons why it has proven necessary to include this alternative as an authorised method of control. Parliament also defends the need to guarantee fair competition and thus avoid any monopolistic temptation.

However, today we call on the Commission to retain all the precepts that we defended in my report, all the guarantees of preservation of fundamental rights. Moreover, we encourage it to work with industry and the Member States in order to ensure that in the near future, only automatic protection scanners are used and that no inspector is needed to view any image.

  Gesine Meissner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I am much obliged to the Commissioner for his presentation. Commissioner, you said that in this case, this proposal largely meets all Parliament’s demands. In my opinion, that is not the case, and also in my opinion, it is not the case either that all the privacy rights of passengers have been safeguarded. That is why we have just tabled an oral question on this.

In fact, as Mr de Grandes Pascual stated, we had a report in which we discussed and set out what form scanners should take where these are permitted to be deployed as an additional security measure at airports. In this report, we also said that people must have a free choice as to whether or not they go through them. Health and human dignity must be protected; data and privacy must also be safeguarded.

In fact, what has now been proposed is exactly what we did not want. We did not want to have scanners that show real images – whether or not these are blurred. I am familiar with these images; I have been to the US and have seen such scanners. I do not want something like that placed in Europe’s airports. These scanners do, in fact, allow quite a lot of a person’s body to be seen. To me it makes no difference whether or not the person looking at them is in another room and does not see the people in real life. It is a violation of privacy and intimacy, and we expressly discussed the fact that that is exactly what we do not want.

Despite this, the Commission’s proposal now states that something along these lines is to be permitted in order to implement our decision. Naturally, we are upset about it. That is why we are asking you to reconsider. There is the option of having simple stick figures, as they are known – in other words, schematic illustrations; either a green OK or a stick figure with red dots – showing, for example, that an arm should be investigated because something suspicious is indicated there. That really is something that we would like, without images being stored. That would protect people’s privacy as well as protecting data.

We are astonished, and we are not happy that something different is now being proposed. If the installation of something that is actually quite different is being considered, then we need a legislative process. We are talking about the citizens of Europe and that is why the representatives of these citizens need to be involved in a proper procedure.

  Jacqueline Foster, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commission for its statement today. It was very interesting.

There is no disagreement between the Commission and Parliament on the inclusion of body scanners as an additional security measure in the fight against terrorism. However, I still have some concerns about the way we are moving forward. We know that technology is already available which addresses the health, privacy and data protection concerns of screened passengers and would avoid passenger exemptions, yet the implementing measures produced by the Commission have failed to specify that the body image must be in the form of a stick figure, which colleagues have already raised, nor does it specify that backscatter radiation equipment is unacceptable to this Parliament, especially when there are effective alternatives.

In addition, Commissioner, we need to raise our game in the areas of cross-border intelligence, counter-terrorism measures, the use of central reservation systems and, not least, passenger profiling in order to identify potential terrorists before they even reach our airports.

It is essential that we find a more sophisticated way forward in the fight against terrorism. To achieve one-stop security, we must have uniform rules applied in a harmonised and coherent manner across Europe.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Saïd El Khadraoui, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (NL) Mr President, thank you for your flexibility in allowing me to speak later than expected. I would like to begin by thanking the Commission for its statement and for the solid progress made on this matter. You will be aware that, three years ago, Parliament staunchly opposed the introduction of rules relating to the use of body scanners because, at that time, you were actually asking for a carte blanche in order to do what the Member States wanted without going into detail.

Much has happened in the meantime. Tests and trials have taken place at a number of airports. The technology has evolved enormously, and discussions have also taken place between the Parliament and your departments. You will be aware that we adopted a resolution a few months ago in which we summed up our conditions. You have taken them almost entirely on board.

It is important that the introduction of body scanners in airports should not be compulsory. It is to remain optional. It is still possible for people to refuse to be scanned and to opt for an alternative screening method. Account has been taken of our demands concerning public health: scanners with ionising radiation are being prohibited. Strict conditions regarding privacy are also being attached. I am thinking, in particular, of the fact that security personnel are not allowed to make eye contact with a person going through the scanner, that images may not be stored, and that they are blurred. We would have preferred stick figures – that is a small nuance that does make a difference – but overall, we feel that we are able to support these proposals and that we, Parliament, must be consistent. You have taken account of our viewpoint. Let us now move ahead.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, as rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I represent the freedoms of passengers, of Europeans. It is thanks to the European Parliament that X-rays have been banned from body scanners and that passengers have a free choice of whether to pass through a body scanner or not.

Yet we also clearly argued against the use of photographs and against there being security staff, male or female, sitting further up the chain looking at photographs of naked passengers. These arguments were not accepted. Why were they not accepted? The reason is that commercial interests come before private interests, before privacy. It is a little strange to know that the technology exists to use this equipment entirely without photographs but that privacy has been sacrificed because we apparently do not want to price certain companies out of the market. It cannot be right that our privacy and our freedoms should have to give way to companies which apparently are not innovating enough.

I would very much like to hear from the European Commission as to why it has chosen to bow to these companies. As I see it, the world has turned upside down. We could still do something about it, but no, the European Commission has decided in all its wisdom that these are merely technical measures and that legislation on this matter is not needed. Body scanners at airports is just the beginning. There are already body scanners at the Supreme Court in Paris. Who can tell us that companies or institutions, such as large museums, will not introduce such equipment in the future? How do we guarantee that citizens, visitors to museums, passengers at airports and train passengers will not be stared at by somebody further down the line? It is not necessary, we should not be doing it, and I would appreciate it if you would respect our wishes in this regard.

  Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, body scanners are placebos. If you look it up in Wikipedia, a placebo is a sham medicine that contains no active ingredient and thus has no pharmacological effect. The fact is that a ten-month test phase in Germany, for example, showed that body scanners resulted in a lower level of security than conventional methods and were therefore a failure. Sweat stains were signalled as a security risk, tissues as a danger. There were false alarm levels of up to 100%. No body scanner in the world can analyse body orifices or inside the body. Objects hidden there cannot be detected. We should not suppose that terrorists are more stupid than they are. Where body scanners were used regularly, it was not the success rate that went up, but rather the abuse rate.

Take a look at the US: a woman there had to remove her breast prosthesis to prove what it was, and that was after scanning. In the UK, two women refused to be scanned for religious or health reasons and were not permitted to fly. The most embarrassing body checks exist as alternatives in various countries. The risk of abuse is likely to rise further in the future simply because the Committee on Transport and Tourism has decided, as stated previously, that real body images are possible. That means being able to see the actual outlines. There have already been cases of offensive remarks having increased and that is a human rights problem.

The word placebo comes from the Latin and means ‘I will please’. The only ones this will please are the market leaders in body scanners that make and sell this rubbish.

  Juozas Imbrasas, on behalf on the EFD Group. – (LT) Mr President, body scanners that use X-rays and microwaves enable us to see liquid, non-solid and plastic explosive materials that metal detectors overlook. However, they not only reveal what is hidden beneath a person’s clothes, but their whole body. I believe that body scanners can only be added to the list of authorised screening methods if, and I stress if, an independent body carries out a comprehensive, scientifically based impact assessment. This assessment should take into account immediate and delayed effects and the long-term cumulative impact on human health, as well as risks to personal data, individual dignity and privacy. I propose that we should once again seriously consider alternatives to the use of body scanners. We must use less invasive technologies which are completely reliable and do not infringe fundamental rights or pose a danger to human health. Specific rules should be laid down for especially sensitive or vulnerable passengers, such as pregnant women, children, people with disabilities or with specific illnesses making this type of check unadvisable.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, this is a debate that raises many emotive issues to do with human rights and, most importantly, security. One of the points I would make is that when anyone uses airports, they do so of their own free will, they do not have to do so; so they do actually voluntarily give up part of their liberties. It has been said that, to protect us all, some of us have to give up part of our liberties. I do, however, support the view that alternatives – such as searches – should be available.

This issue has flummoxed this Parliament and the Commission for some time. In 2005, while this Parliament was completely opposed to body scanners, the European Union spent EUR 725 000 on six body scanners that have never been used and are sitting in a car park in Brussels. They are now obsolete, but you pay a yearly maintenance. This is another example of you saying one thing and asking people to do another. This should be a matter for Member States. For Christ’s sake, spend money wisely, do not just throw it away! We have a shortage of money.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, this is a debate that has already taken place, but I shall make some comments with reference to new scenarios.

Following the failed attack on a plane on 25 December 2009, more effective protection and detection technology had to be sought. Scanners at airports increase levels of security but they present problems, especially in relation to the protection of human rights.

The Council and the Commission accepted Mr de Grandes Pascual’s proposal that security scanners should not use technology based on ionising radiation. Now it must be decided whether the exploration mechanism will use real passenger images or stick images, which are the most appropriate option in order to protect the intimacy, privacy, health and dignity of passengers.

However, stick figures present a problem in terms of free competition since today, only one company has that technology. Although other companies in the sector have announced that they can introduce the algorithms needed in order to adapt the scanners, the machine configuration time could work against them.

Therefore, the Commission should examine the timeframe for implementing the rules relating to body scanners, avoiding a possible monopoly situation and supporting decisively Parliament’s report and the report of Mr de Grandes Pascual, which are one and the same thing.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, the honourable Member has said that he also wishes to protect privacy, but that he wants to avoid monopolies. Does he really believe – knowing the way the European market works – that if we want to have something on the market, such as a particular type of scanner, it will remain the case that only one company makes them? Does he not think that more companies would then start producing them simply in order to be able to compete for this market?

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Ms Meissner, thank you very much for your interesting question. Strictly speaking, in order to avoid what you are unhappy about and what I, too, am unhappy about, I would say and repeat that what the Commission should do is examine the timeframe for the implementation of rules relating to body scanners very carefully. That way, everyone will be able to compete on equal terms but in line with what has been said by Parliament and in Mr de Grandes Pascual’s report.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Madam President, clearly from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and our group, the S&D, there were many serious civil liberty concerns. The Commission proposal has, in fairness, taken into account much of the Parliament’s position, apart from the point which was our insistence that stick images be used. The Commission proposal does allow for body image technology to be used, but the image is to be blurred and obscured and, of course, the images will be remote. I have seen for myself in UK airports such as Manchester how that remote image technology works.

However, when passengers are given the choice to refuse to go through a security scanner, they will be subject to alternative security procedures. These must be proportionate and must also fall within what is deemed to be proportionate measures. The proposal does give us, however, an EU-wide framework; it does set minimum standards. It will also prevent situations such as passengers being told that they cannot fly if they do not go through a security scanner at all, and it will ban the use of X-ray security due to serious health concerns.

But the S&D reiterate the request made in July that common rules on the use of security scanners must be revised on a regular basis and, when necessary, adapted to improve the protection of fundamental rights, health, privacy and personal data in line with technological progress.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I am glad to say that, within the ALDE Group, our representatives on the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs are united in our dissatisfaction with the Commission’s implementing regulation, unlike in the two biggest groups where I seem to see some sort of discordance between their TRAN and LIBE arms. But we are united. I thoroughly agree with what Ms Meissner has said and agree with some other people, like Ms Foster, for instance, from the ECR Group. It does seem to be a major missed opportunity that the Commission has failed to advance best available technology. It may well be that, at the moment, there is only one supplier of stick images but, as has been said, once the regulations are set, you can be absolutely sure that other suppliers will pile into the market.

Therefore, I find the Commission decision frankly incomprehensible on both privacy and, indeed, technological grounds. We can have effective and more sophisticated security scanners that fully meet the privacy concerns, not only of the Parliament but the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Fundamental Rights Agency and so on. You are still going to capture a naked body image. Whatever is said about blurring or the reviewer being distant and so on, that is the fundamental problem and potential assault on both privacy and dignity. You have got the possibility of stick images with no human intervention. Why has the Commission missed this big opportunity to secure both technological advance and privacy?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, I would like to ask Ms Ludford a question about the difference between these stick images and blurred images. Does she not agree with me that, since the legislation stipulates that security staff may not make eye contact and are thus located in a separate room where they look at images that are unrecognisable, the privacy of the individuals in question is adequately guaranteed, especially in combination with the other conditions that we have imposed?

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, the answer is ‘no’, I do not accept that it removes all the privacy threats in the same way as stick images do. You are still capturing a nude, naked body image. I said that, even though there are supposedly safeguards about blurring the face and having the reviewer in a separate room, unfortunately, when money is going to be involved, the tabloid press – certainly the tabloid press in my country – will no doubt be bribing security guards to tip them off when someone famous is going through a security scanner. You will be able to evade those safeguards. Only a stick image, which gives you an automatic detection, can fully safeguard privacy.

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, you said that you had respected Parliament’s resolution. That is true as regards the issue of X-rays and as regards requiring airports to use such technology on individuals. Now I move on to the weaknesses of comitology, however. As regards the blurred naked images, which we discussed and which we clearly wanted to exclude, you have demanded – for competition reasons or in order to secure competition – that these slightly blurred images should be acceptable.

I ask myself and I ask you: who is dictating in Europe? Do we give priority to competition or do we give priority to privacy? Who is dictating here? Who are you trying to favour by not clearly following Parliament’s resolution? Normally, when it comes to technical matters, we go with the best available technology, not give the dinosaurs in the market who do not want to change the right to carry on forever. The reliability of the equipment has been questioned and I really have to ask myself here whether a completely wrong decision has been made in this area.

  Brian Simpson (S&D). – Mr President, I thank the Commission for its statement. I want to start by saying that I do not want to be seen as somebody who upsets Liberal unity, but I would remind Ms Ludford that these proposals have actually come from a Liberal Commissioner. Members will be aware of the positions taken by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, both in its decision to agree with the Commission’s recommendations in regard to security scanners, and in the excellent work done by Mr de Grandes Pascual in his much wider report on aviation security.

I believe there is a need for a harmonised system – that is EU-wide – to put an end to different security measures being taken at Member State level, leading to anomalies that are confusing, inefficient and discriminatory. If you look at both the de Grandes Pascual report and the Commission’s proposal, you will see that 90% of what this Parliament demanded has been incorporated into those Commission proposals. The one outstanding issue is the one relating to the image shown by the machine and this issue, in my opinion, has detracted from the fundamental issue, which is that of aviation security. Yes, Parliament would prefer stick figures; but the question we have to ask is: are we as a Parliament prepared to throw out all the good things that are in that report purely on this issue? In my view, that would be wrong.

Members from other committees may feel that individual liberties should take priority over security – and that is their right. But for me, there is no greater civil liberty than for people to fly safely and securely without fear of being blown up, without fear of terrorist attack, which is why I am happy to agree with the Commission’s proposals.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr Simpson, you trot out that old canard that those of us who are concerned about privacy are somehow not interested in security. But what I think many of us in this debate are saying is that it is not necessary to choose between the two. We know that there is available technology – which the Commission has failed to support – that would better ensure privacy, in the shape of stick-figure machines.

Do you accept that it is possible to reconcile security and privacy? In your capacity as Chair of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, will you try and advance that, instead of trying to trade off security against privacy and saying that those of us who are perhaps on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs do not care about security? Because, believe me, we do care about security, and we fly as well.

  Brian Simpson (S&D). – Mr President, first of all, I am not sure what a canard is, but I will say this: as far as I am concerned, we all share the need for security and we all share the need for civil liberties to be protected. But what we have to get is a balance and what I think we have sometimes is a debate that focuses on the civil liberties issue rather than on the issue of aviation security.

I, in my role as chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, am, of course, guided by the will of that committee, which is to support the Commission’s proposals.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, I must admit that I feel rather sad that we are having this debate. This is because it is a perfect example of a parliamentary debate that loses sight of the general picture when it becomes bogged down in technical issues or minor detail.

We have just heard Mr Simpson make a point of exceptional demagogy: ‘there is no greater civil liberty than for people to fly safely and securely’. Mr Simpson, there are various civil liberties and it is not just up to the Committee on Transport and Tourism to decide which of these actually matter and are of greater importance than the others.

Like the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I also believe that there are concerns about privacy and health issues here, but they are unlikely to be the last word on the question of body scanners because ultimately, even once these privacy issues have been successfully dealt with, there will remain yet another problem: these body scanners are expensive. It is going to be expensive to introduce these body scanners into airports throughout Europe and, despite what Mr Simpson says, that will not overcome people’s security concerns because, in five or six years from now, there will be new security threats and new types of equipment. In addition, there will always be terrorist threats outside planes, and we have the right to feel safe on trains, in shopping centres and in schools as well.

What I am trying to say with this is that there is no cost-benefit analysis in this debate (neither in the Committee on Transport and Tourism nor in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs) that will tell us: is it the citizens of Europe who are asking for this? The answer to this is no. The citizens of Europe are asking for jobs, education and health care. They are not asking for millions to be spent on body scanners.

That is something we are forgetting. We are forgetting all about this cost-benefit analysis and we are forgetting all about this part of the debate concerning the real world. That is why this debate is making me sad.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Tavares, do you know of any examples that would actually justify the expense of spending many millions – billions in fact – on developing these body scanners? Are there examples showing that they have resulted in an increase in security?

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Ms Ernst, I have not actually been able to find a single example. However, there may be more and better examples of public investment in engineering technology to be found for things that are really necessary, such as, for example, in the case of European civil protection services, the development of equipment for locating people buried beneath rubble following earthquakes.

I recall that at the time of the attack in Detroit, which was the attack that began this whole debate about body scanners, we also had an earthquake in Haiti. There were hundreds of thousands of people buried under the rubble. We did not have the equipment to locate them. Every day, however, lobbyists from the scanner industry were knocking on the doors of Members of the European Parliament to tell us: our scanner meets your concerns about privacy very well, but each one costs EUR 150 000 and we are going to fill every airport in Europe with them.

Are there not more useful things that European engineering and industry could be doing that would be of greater social benefit?

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, without doubt, terrorism is still – and will be for a very long time – a threat to in-flight security and, of course, there is no easy way to address it. However, I fail to see the purpose of this unprecedented rush to adopt body scanners when their effectiveness is disputed and, at the same time, the time required for passengers to go through security controls will certainly increase. Moreover, in addition to the high price that will doubtless need to be paid, they do not resolve the problem of how to protect passengers’ dignity and, more importantly, their health.

On the health issue, it is encouraging that the Commission has sought the opinion of the special scientific committee on new health risks. This was something that we proposed back in March. However, it is a pity that this opinion only relates to one type of scanner, rather than forming part of a more detailed study into the safety and suitability of scanners.

Finally, on the question of fundamental rights, if the Commission’s decision to give passengers the right to opt out translates into an obligatory body search, as has happened in the United States, then I fear that this provision will prove to be even more problematic than the operation of scanners themselves.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR). – Mr President, I just want to make a quick point to Mr Danellis – not points that Ms Ernst should have posed to the Commission and not our colleague over there.

As regards the health issues on the technology, would he agree that little emphasis has come from the Commission on the concerns we have on the use of backscatter radiation equipment when we know there is alternative technology? And as regards the comments from the Commission about them not choosing the technology – which we understand – we have raised enough points here to say we all know about competition for technology and if any company wants to compete, then they have to be there first. But this is a definite health issue and would he agree with me that this has not been emphasised enough?

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, thank you for the question. Yes, I absolutely agree and I have said that I would be grateful if the Commission asked the special scientific committee to draft an integrated study. Also, the question of whether scanners are appropriate and effective has not been answered; I consider this to be a crucial issue because, if we are not certain that scanners are sufficiently effective, then why are we embarking on this entire process? I think that this decision to integrate body scanners into airport security systems is extremely premature and extremely rushed. There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, based on the resolution adopted in July, Parliament requested minimum common conditions, without which body scanners cannot be included on the list of authorised security check methods at airports. We asked for:

1. Body scanners to be used that display only stick figures and do not produce body images.

2. Data to be used only during the time when scanning is being carried out. It should be destroyed immediately after the person has gone through the security check, and should not be stored.

3. The deployment of body scanners using X-rays not to be permitted, to protect the health of passengers and security staff.

4. A good balance to be achieved between the benefits gained from using body scanners and the investments required to introduce them.

Not all these requests have been complied with by the Commission’s proposal. I call on the Commission to withdraw this proposal and re-examine it from the perspective …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, after hearing the debate, I want to confirm the position of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

There is no doubt in our minds that we want security against terrorist acts, and we want it now. Furthermore, we want there to be scanners because the Commission has shown this to be the case. However, the Committee on Transport and Tourism clearly stated that scanners must guarantee privacy and, accordingly, a stick figure must appear.

My question to the Commission is whether it has analysed that possibility in sufficient depth, a possibility the Committee on Transport and Tourism agreed to, because it seems as though at the bottom of all this, there is an exclusively commercial issue underlying the option that the Commission is putting forward today.

I would like to ask whether you have investigated in sufficient depth who or which companies …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the use of body scanners has undoubted benefits and may contribute to greater aviation safety. One of the positive factors is that they detect more than just metal items. This is an advantage at the moment, when potential weapons consist of components made from different materials.

The scanning method must, however, be acceptable in terms of protecting the privacy of the travelling public. Only schematic views should be available, and any data obtained in this way must be destroyed immediately after the person has passed through the security check. It is also important to exclude any form of radiation or effects threatening passenger health. The scanning itself should take the form of random selection, and any refusal should not automatically lead to suspicion. However, any passenger refusing a check must be subjected to an alternative form of security check ensuring an equal level of security.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I think that, at least at their current stage of technological development, security scanners do not offer sufficient guarantees to be able to be used at airports in the European Union. Apart from some of these scanners infringing the right to privacy by producing body images, they also pose a genuine danger to human health. It is said that they produce a permissible quantity of harmful emissions. I want to highlight that this minimum amount of radiation does not disappear from the human body, but accumulates until it reaches a limit at which it has a devastating effect. This is especially dangerous for frequent airline passengers who might need to be subjected to radiation from scanners hundreds of times each year. This is why, as long as the studies and technologies available do not clearly prove …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, this debate shows that the issue of security scanners is not without controversy, but on balance, the advantages prevail in terms of increasing security for our passengers and aircraft in non-intrusive ways.

The proposal carefully balances considerations of privacy, health and public security. I recall once more that scanners are voluntary; they are voluntary for the airports that use them and, what is of particular importance, they will be voluntary for passengers. This means that if a passenger does not want to be scanned, he can opt for another form of screening.

There was a question as to whether we put much thought into this issue; I think in this proposal – which was developed after very careful analyses and attempts to find a balance between privacy issues and security issues – that the right balance has been found.

We consider it particularly important to have harmonised EU rules in this field, because if we do not have harmonisation, then Member States or airports will start doing this on their own. We could have a much more chaotic situation without harmonisation, as each Member State and each airport could take any decision they like. I think that harmonisation is key in this particular area.

As it will be approved under comitology, adjustments that would better preserve passenger rights can easily be made following, for example, technological developments. In my introduction, I said that the Commission is also in favour of moving as fast as possible from the present situation to that of stick figures, but it takes time and we have to preserve competition on the market. By having comitology procedures, action could be taken very fast. When we look at developments in this area, changes in the rules could be made rather quickly.

To summarise, we consider that the proposal is well-balanced, carefully thought through and I think that with this proposal, we will ensure both the privacy of passengers and – what is also extremely important – security. I would like to thank you once again for giving me the possibility to explain the Commission’s position in this House.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) As one of the possible technical solutions for guaranteeing safe air transport, the issue of body scanners is very serious as it concerns the safety of citizens through the use of innovative technologies, and I am therefore glad that today, the Commission is providing an assessment of the impact of body scanners on an individual’s health and fundamental human rights. It is undoubtedly very important and essential to guarantee aviation security, but we must ascertain the impact that measures created to ensure this security have on our health, fundamental rights, privacy, dignity and data protection. In the resolution it adopted on the impact of body scanners, and several times during discussions, the European Parliament has expressed concern over the possible infringement of the human right to privacy, the impact of radiation on health and the reasonableness of the cost of acquiring special equipment. Thus, before using body scanners, we must know exactly whether these technical security measures will guarantee effective protection of individuals travelling by air and whether they really will be safe, effective and sound. Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to the fact that, when applying new technical measures aimed at achieving a high level of airport security, it is also crucial to set boundaries between human rights and security itself, because those measures are not just about protecting citizens, but also about the impact on their health, rights and freedoms.