Compte rendu in extenso des débats

Jeudi 29 septembre 2011 - Strasbourg

5. Scanners de sûreté (débat)

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η δήλωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με τους σαρωτές ασφάλειας.

  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, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, como saben, el Parlamento, rechazó en 2008, de una forma contundente, la propuesta de resolución que se le presentaba. Después, en los mismos términos, se aprobó por una holgada mayoría el informe que yo mismo presenté a la Cámara, con un gran consenso y con el esfuerzo de la Comisión y de los grupos.

¿Cuales fueron los motivos para este cambio de actitud del Parlamento? Sin duda, ver cumplidas todas las exigencias que demandaba aceptar la utilización de estos escáneres: preservación de los derechos fundamentales y, entre estos, especialmente la dignidad y la privacidad del pasajero, la no discriminación, la protección de los datos de carácter personal y la protección de la salud.

Así se llegó a establecer qué tipo de escáneres eran los idóneos para garantizar, de un lado, la seguridad del pasajero y, del otro, preservar intactos sus derechos. Los escáneres no utilizarán radiación ionizante, no serán obligatorios ni para los Estados ni para los ciudadanos, y todos protegerán los derechos anteriormente descritos.

La Comisión ha recogido todas estas preocupaciones en su futura legislación, es cierto, pero incluye, además de los escáneres de figuras estándares, la posibilidad de otra modalidad que, garantizando el mismo elenco de derechos, permite la inspección de una imagen, aunque sea borrosa, del pasajero.

Aceptamos las razones por las que se ha visto obligado a incluir esta alternativa como método de control autorizado. El Parlamento también defiende la necesidad de garantizar una competencia leal y escapar así a cualquier tentación monopolística.

Sin embargo, hoy le pedimos a la Comisión que mantenga todos los preceptos que hemos defendido en mi informe, todas las garantías de preservación de los derechos fundamentales. Además, se le anima a que trabaje con la industria y los Estados miembros para asegurar que en un futuro próximo se utilicen únicamente los escáneres de protección automática y no sea necesario un inspector que visualice ninguna imagen.

  Gesine Meissner, im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar für die Präsentierung. Sie haben gesagt, in diesem Fall ist in dieser Vorlage weitgehend allen Forderungen des Parlaments entsprochen worden. Das ist meines Erachtens nicht der Fall, und dass wirklich alle Privatrechte von Passagieren gewahrt werden, ist meines Erachtens auch nicht der Fall. Darum haben wir gerade dagegen eine Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung eingereicht.

Es ist tatsächlich so – Herr de Grandes Pascual hat es erzählt –, wir haben einen Bericht gehabt, in dem wir uns darüber unterhalten und festgelegt haben, wie Scanner aussehen sollen, die als zusätzliche Sicherheitsmaßnahme an Flughäfen eingesetzt werden dürfen. Und da haben wir auch gesagt: Man muss freiwillig entscheiden können, ob man durchgeht oder nicht. Die Gesundheit und die Menschenwürde müssen geschützt werden, es müssen Daten und die Privatsphäre geschützt werden.

Es ist tatsächlich so, dass wir gerade das, was jetzt vorgeschlagen worden ist, genau nicht wollten. Wir wollten keine Scanner haben, die reale Abbildungen – seien sie verschwommen oder nicht – zeigen. Ich kenne diese Abbildungen, ich bin in den USA gewesen, ich habe solche Scanner gesehen. Ich möchte nicht, dass so etwas auch auf Europas Flughäfen eingerichtet wird. Das sind wirklich Scanner, wo man relativ viel vom Körper eines Menschen sehen kann. Da ist es für mich egal, ob das jemand, der in einem anderen Raum sitzt, sehen kann, ohne diesen Menschen in der Realität zu sehen, oder nicht. Es ist eine Verletzung der Intim- und Privatsphäre, und wir hatten ausdrücklich darüber diskutiert, dass wir genau das nicht wollen.

Es ist jetzt trotzdem in dem Papier der Kommission drin, dass für die Umsetzung unseres Beschlusses praktisch so etwas erlaubt sein soll. Das hat uns natürlich erregt, und darum bitten wir darum, das noch einmal zu bedenken. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, einfach nur stick figures, wie sie das nennen, also schematische Abbildungen, zu haben, entweder ein grünes OK oder aber ein Strichmännchen mit roten Punkten, dass man z.B. den Arm untersuchen soll, weil da etwas Verdächtiges angezeigt war. Das ist wirklich etwas, was wir möchten, ohne Speicherung. Das schützt die Privatsphäre und die Daten.

Wir sind sehr erstaunt und auch nicht damit einverstanden, dass jetzt etwas anderes vorgeschlagen wird, und wenn darum etwas anderes wirklich eingerichtet werden sollte und man darüber nachdenkt, dann brauchen wir einen legislativen Prozess. Es geht um die Bürger in Europa, und dann müssen auch die Bürgervertreter in ein ordentliches Verfahren einbezogen werden.

  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.

PRESIDE: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

  Saïd El Khadraoui, namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dank u voor de flexibiliteit waardoor ik later dan voorzien kan inspringen. Om te beginnen wil ik de Commissie bedanken voor haar verklaring en voor de goede afloop in dit dossier. U weet dat drie jaar geleden het Parlement hevig tegenstander was van de invoering van spelregels rond de bodyscanner omdat u ons op dat ogenblik eigenlijk carte blanche vroeg, om te doen wat de lidstaten zouden willen, zonder in detail te treden.

Ondertussen is er veel gebeurd. We hebben een aantal testen gehad, proefprojecten, in een aantal luchthavens. De technologie is enorm geëvolueerd en er is ook goed overleg geweest tussen het Parlement en uw diensten. U weet dat we enkele maanden geleden een resolutie hebben goedgekeurd, waarin onze voorwaarden stonden opgesomd. Die hebt u zo goed als volledig overgenomen.

Het is belangrijk dat de bodyscanner niet verplicht wordt ingevoerd in de luchthavens. Het blijft een optie. Het blijft ook mogelijk voor mensen om die scan te weigeren en voor een alternatieve screeningsmethode te kiezen. Er is rekening gehouden met onze eisen inzake volksgezondheid: scanners met ioniserende straling zijn verboden. Op het vlak van privacy zijn er sterke voorwaarden aan verbonden. Ik denk dan in het bijzonder aan het feit dat het veiligheidspersoneel geen oogcontact mag hebben met de persoon die door de scanner gaat, dat de beelden niet opgeslagen worden, dat ze ook vertroebeld zijn. Wij hadden liever ook gewild dat het standaardfiguurtjes zouden zijn – dat is een kleine nuance die wel verschil maakt – maar globaal genomen denk ik dat we deze voorstellen kunnen steunen en dat wij als Parlement consequent moeten zijn. U hebt rekening gehouden met ons standpunt. Welnu, laten we daar dan ook voor gaan.

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, als rapporteur van de Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden sta ik hier voor de vrijheden van de passagiers, van de Europeanen. Het ligt aan het Europees Parlement dat ondertussen de röntgenstralen in die bodyscanners verboden zijn én dat er vrije keuze is om door die bodyscanner te gaan of niet.

Maar wij hebben er ook heel duidelijk voor gepleit om niet meer met foto's te werken en met mannen of vrouwen, beveiligers, die verderop zitten te kijken naar foto's van blote passagiers. Dat is niet ingewilligd. En waarom is dat niet ingewilligd? Omdat hier commerciële belangen boven private belangen, boven privacy gaan. Het is een beetje vreemd om te weten dat de techniek bestaat om helemaal fotoloos met die apparaten om te gaan, maar dat, omdat wij bepaalde bedrijven blijkbaar niet uit de markt willen prijzen, ingeleverd wordt op de privacy. Het kan toch niet zo zijn dat onze privacy en onze vrijheden moeten wijken voor bedrijven die blijkbaar niet genoeg innoveren.

Ik zou toch echt de Europese Commissie willen horen waarom ze ervoor gekozen hebben om die bedrijven de ruimte te geven. Volgens mij is het de wereld op zijn kop. En konden wij daar nog maar wat aan doen, maar nee de Europese Commissie heeft in al haar wijsheid besloten dat dit slechts technische maatregelen zijn, dat hier geen wetgeving voor hoeft te komen. Die bodyscanners op vliegvelden is slechts het begin. Er staan nu al bodyscanners bij de Hoge Raad in Parijs. Wie zegt ons dat bedrijven of instellingen, zoals grote musea, niet die apparaten in de toekomst gaan neerzetten. Hoe garanderen wij dan dat burgers, bezoekers van zo'n museum, reizigers op vliegvelden, reizigers in treinen niet door iemand verderop worden aangestaard? Het is niet nodig, we zouden het niet moeten doen, en ik zou er wat voor geven dat u onze wens daarin respecteert.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Körperscanner sind Placebos. Schaut mal in Wiki nach, da bedeutet Placebo ein Scheinarzneimittel, welches keinen Arzneistoff enthält und somit auch keine pharmakologische Wirkung entfaltet. In Fakten heißt das z. B., dass eine zehnmonatige Testphase in Deutschland erbrachte, dass Körperscanner weniger Sicherheit als die herkömmlichen Methoden bringen und daher scheiterten. Schweißflecken wurden als Sicherheitsrisiko signalisiert, Papiertaschentücher als Gefahr. Fehlalarme bis zu 100 % hat es gegeben. Kein Körperscanner der Welt ermöglicht eine Analyse von Körperöffnungen oder des Körperinneren. Darin versteckte Objekte können nicht aufgefunden werden. Man sollte Terroristen nicht als dümmer einschätzen als sie sind. Dort, wo Körperscanner serienmäßig eingesetzt wurden, stieg nicht der Erfolg, sondern die Missbrauchsquote.

Schauen wir in die USA. Dort musste eine Frau ihre Brustprothese als Beweis abnehmen, und zwar nach dem Scannen. In Großbritannien weigerten sich zwei Frauen aus religiösen bzw. gesundheitlichen Gründen, gescannt zu werden, und durften nicht fliegen. Peinlichste Körperkontrollen gibt es als Alternativen in verschiedenen Ländern. Künftig dürfte die Missbrauchsgefahr erheblich steigen, und zwar einfach deswegen, weil der Verkehrsausschuss – wie schon gesagt – beschlossen hat: Reale Körperdarstellungen sind möglich. Ja, das heißt doch, ich kann die realen Umrisse erkennen. Es gibt schon Fälle von belästigenden Bemerkungen, die gestiegen sind, und das ist ein menschenrechtliches Problem.

Placebo kommt aus dem Lateinischen und heißt: Ich werde gefallen. Gefallen daran dürften lediglich die Marktführer für Körperscanner haben, die diesen Schund herstellen und verkaufen.

  Juozas Imbrasas, EFD frakcijos vardu. – Mikrobangų ar rentgeno spinduliais žmogaus kūną peršviečiantys kūno skaitytuvai leidžia pastebėti metalo detektorių neužfiksuojamas skystas, birias ar plastikines sprogstamąsias medžiagas. Deja, jie atskleidžia ne tik tai, kas paslėpta po drabužiais, bet ir visą žmogaus kūną. Manau, kad kūno skeneriai gali būti įtraukti į leidžiamų tikrinimo metodų sąrašą tik tuomet, kai, pabrėžiu, nepriklausoma institucija atliks išsamų moksliškai pagrįstą poveikio vertinimą. Šiame vertinime turi būti atsižvelgiama į tiesioginį ir uždelstą poveikį bei į ilgalaikį kaupiamąjį poveikį žmonių sveikatai, pavojų asmens duomenims, asmens orumui ir privatumui. Siūlyčiau, kad reikėtų dar kartą rimtai apsvarstyti kūno skenerių naudojimo alternatyvas. Turi būti naudojamos mažiau invazinės technologijos, kurios būtų visiškai patikimos, nepažeistų pagrindinių teisių ir nekeltų pavojaus žmonių sveikatai. Reikia numatyti atskiras taisykles jautriems arba pažeidžiamiems keleiviams, pavyzdžiui, nėščioms moterims, vaikams, neįgaliesiems arba sergantiems ligomis, dėl kurių tokio pobūdžio patikra yra nerekomenduotina.

  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). - Señor Presidente, este es un debate que ya se ha celebrado, pero hago comentarios con referencia a nuevos escenarios.

Tras el fallido ataque a un avión, el 25 de diciembre de 2009, había que buscar más efectividad en las tecnologías de protección y detección. Los escáneres en los aeropuertos incrementan los niveles de seguridad, pero plantean problemas, en especial, relativos a la protección de los derechos fundamentales.

El Consejo y la Comisión aceptaron la propuesta del señor de Grandes de que los escáneres de protección no utilizaran tecnologías basadas en radiaciones ionizantes. Y ahora se debe decidir si el mecanismo de exploración utilizará imágenes reales de los pasajeros o plantillas de figuras humanas estándar, que es lo más adecuado para proteger la intimidad, la privacidad, la salud y la dignidad de los pasajeros.

Pero la plantilla estándar plantea un problema de libre competencia, pues hoy solo una compañía tiene esta tecnología. Aunque otras empresas del sector anuncian que pueden introducir los algoritmos necesarios para adecuar las máquinas de exploración, el tiempo para la configuración de las máquinas puede jugar en su contra.

Por eso la Comisión debe examinar el plazo para la implementación de las normas relativas a los escáneres corporales, evitando una situación de posible monopolio y apoyando con decisión el informe de este Parlamento y el informe del señor de Grandes, que son la misma cosa.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada conforme al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kollege, Sie haben gerade gesagt, dass Sie auch die Privatsphäre schützen wollen, dass Sie aber Monopolstrukturen vermeiden wollen. Glauben Sie wirklich – so wie der europäische Markt funktioniert –, dass es, wenn man etwas auf dem Markt haben möchte, z. B. eine bestimmte Art von Scannern, dann dabei bleiben wird, dass nur eine Firma das herstellt? Glauben Sie nicht auch, dass es dann mehrere Firmen gibt, die das produzieren werden, allein um im Wettbewerb am Markt teilnehmen zu können?

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señora, muchas gracias por su interesante pregunta. En puridad, para evitar lo que usted lamenta y yo también, lo que digo y reitero es que lo que debe hacer la Comisión es examinar con mucho detenimiento el plazo para la implementación de las normas relativas a los escáneres corporales y así, de esta forma, todos podrán concurrir en igualdad de condiciones pero sometidos a lo que han dicho el Parlamento y el informe del señor Luis de Grandes.

  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). - Voorzitter, ik zou mevrouw Ludford toch een vraag willen stellen over dat onderscheid tussen die stick images enerzijds en die vertroebelde beelden anderzijds. Is zij het niet met mij eens dat, indien er in de wetgeving staat dat de veiligheidsagenten geen oogcontact mogen hebben en dus in een aparte ruimte zitten en geconfronteerd worden met beelden die onherkenbaar zijn, er dan toch voldoende garantie is om de privacy van de betrokken mensen te garanderen, zeker ook in combinatie met de andere voorwaarden die wij opgelegd hebben.

  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). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, Sie haben gesagt, dass Sie die Entschließung des Parlaments respektiert haben. Das stimmt für die Frage des Röntgens und die Frage der Verpflichtungen für Flughäfen zum Einsatz an Einzelpersonen. Aber jetzt komme ich zu den Schwächen der Komitologie. In Bezug auf die verschwommenen Nacktbilder, über die wir gesprochen haben und die wir klar ausschließen wollten, haben Sie aus Wettbewerbsgründen oder zur Sicherung des Wettbewerbs verlangt, dass auch diese leicht verschwommenen Bilder akzeptabel sein sollten.

Ich frage mich und ich frage Sie: Wer diktiert in Europa? Ist es die Frage des Wettbewerbs, die den Vorzug hat, oder ist es die Frage von Privatsphäre, die den Vorzug hat. Wer diktiert hier? Wer muss hier begünstigt werden, sodass man nicht klar der Entschließung des Parlaments folgt? Normalerweise gilt es in technischen Fragen immer, dass man der besten verfügbaren Technik folgt und nicht den Dinosauriern am Markt, die sich nicht bewegen wollten, das Recht gibt, ewig weiterzumachen. Die Verlässlichkeit der Geräte ist in Frage gestellt, und ich muss mich hier wirklich fragen, ob in diesem Bereich nicht eine völlige Fehlentscheidung gefällt worden ist.

  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). - Senhor Presidente, eu devo confessar que fico bastante triste com este debate. Porque é o exemplo de um debate parlamentar que, quando se perde nas questões técnicas, de detalhe, perde de vista o mundo como um todo.

Acabámos de assistir, da parte do Sr. Simpson, a um ponto de demagogia extraordinário: não há maior liberdade civil do que poder viajar em segurança. Sr. Simpson, há várias liberdades civis, e não compete só à Comissão dos Transportes decidir quais são as liberdades civis que contam e que são maiores do que as outras.

Eu acho também que, do lado da Comissão LIBE, há aqui preocupações com privacidade e com questões de saúde que não devem ser as últimas respostas à questão dos body scanners, porque, em última análise, mesmo quando responderem às questões de privacidade, nós teremos uma outra questão: estes body scanners são caros. Popular os aeroportos europeus com estes body scanners vai sair caro, e não vai, como diz o Sr. Simpson, acabar com as preocupações de segurança, porque daqui a cinco ou seis anos haverá novos tipos de ameaças e haverá novos tipos de maquinaria e haverá sempre ameaças terroristas fora dos aviões, porque nos comboios, nos centros comerciais, nas escolas, também temos direito a estar em segurança.

O que eu quero dizer com isto é que não há nenhuma análise custo-benefício nesta discussão que nos diga (não a Comissão dos Transportes nem a Comissão LIBE): o povo europeu está a pedir isto? Não, o povo europeu está a pedir empregos, está a pedir educação, está a pedir saúde. Não está a pedir que se gastem milhões em body scanners.

E nós esquecemo-nos disso. Esquecemo-nos dessa análise custo-benefício e esquecemo-nos dessa parte do debate sobre o mundo real, e é por isso que este debate a mim me está a entristecer.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul", nos termos do n.º 8 do artigo 149.°)

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kollege Tavares, kennen Sie irgendein Beispiel, das tatsächlich den Aufwand rechtfertigen würde, dass man viele Millionen – es sind ja Milliarden – ausgibt, um diese Körperscanner zu entwickeln? Gibt es Beispiele, die beweisen, dass damit die Sicherheit erhöht wurde?

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Colega Ernst, não, de facto, não consigo achar nenhum exemplo. No entanto, poderia achar mais exemplos e melhores exemplos de investimento público na área da tecnologia da engenharia para coisas tão necessárias como, por exemplo, no caso dos serviços de protecção civil na Europa, o desenvolvimento de maquinaria para identificar pessoas debaixo de escombros a seguir a sismos, por exemplo.

Lembro-me que, quando houve o ataque de Detroit, que foi o ataque que iniciou todo este debate dos body scanners, ao mesmo tempo tivemos um sismo no Haiti. Centenas de milhares de pessoas estavam debaixo dos escombros. Nós não tínhamos máquinas para as identificar. No entanto, tínhamos os lobistas da indústria de scanners todos os dias a baterem à porta de eurodeputados deste Parlamento para nos dizer: o nosso scanner corresponde muito bem às vossas preocupações de privacidade, mas custa 150 mil euros cada peça, e vamos encher com eles todos os aeroportos da Europa.

Não há coisas úteis que a engenharia e a indústria europeia poderiam estar a fazer com mais ganho social?

  Σπύρος Δανέλλης (S&D). - Κύριε Επίτροπε, δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία πως η τρομοκρατία εξακολουθεί - και θα εξακολουθήσει επί μακρόν - να αποτελεί απειλή για την ασφάλεια των πτήσεων και, βεβαίως, εύκολες λύσεις για την αντιμετώπισή της δεν υπάρχουν. Δεν μπορώ όμως να καταλάβω τη σκοπιμότητα αυτής της πρωτόγνωρης βιασύνης να υιοθετήσουμε τους σαρωτές σώματος τη στιγμή που αμφισβητείται η αποτελεσματικότητά τους και, ταυτόχρονα, είναι δεδομένο ότι θα αυξηθεί και ο χρόνος που απαιτείται για τον έλεγχο των επιβατών. Εξάλλου, πέραν του μεγάλου κόστους που θα ασφαλώς θα απαιτηθεί, δεν δίνεται απάντηση στα προβλήματα που αφορούν την προστασία της αξιοπρέπειας και, κυρίως, της υγείας των επιβατών.

Σχετικά με την υγεία, είναι ενθαρρυντικό το γεγονός ότι η Επιτροπή έχει ζητήσει τη γνωμοδότηση της ειδικής επιστημονικής επιτροπής για τους νέους κινδύνους για την υγεία. Είναι άλλωστε κάτι που είχαμε προτείνει ήδη από τον περασμένο Μάρτιο. Ωστόσο, είναι λυπηρό ότι η γνωμοδότηση αυτή αφορά έναν μόνο τύπο σαρωτή ενώ θα έπρεπε να αποτελούσε τμήμα μιας πιο διεξοδικής μελέτης για την ασφάλεια αλλά και τη σκοπιμότητα των σαρωτών.

Τέλος, στο θέμα των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων, εάν η απόφαση της Επιτροπής να δοθεί στους επιβάτες το δικαίωμα άρνησης του ελέγχου (opt-out) μεταφραστεί σε υποχρεωτική σωματική έρευνα, όπως έχει γίνει εξάλλου στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, τότε φοβάμαι ότι η πρόβλεψη αυτή θα αποδειχθεί ακόμη πιο προβληματική και από τη λειτουργία των ίδιων των σαρωτών.

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 149, παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού)

  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?

  Σπύρος Δανέλλης (S&D). - Ευχαριστώ για την ερώτηση. Ναι, συμφωνώ βεβαίως, και είπα ότι θα εκτιμούσα εάν η Επιτροπή ζητούσε από την ειδική επιστημονική επιτροπή τη σύνταξη μιας ολοκληρωμένης μελέτης. Επίσης, δεν έχουν απαντηθεί επαρκώς και τα ζητήματα σκοπιμότητας και αποτελεσματικότητας της λειτουργίας των σαρωτών, κάτι το οποίο θεωρώ ότι είναι μείζον ζήτημα γιατί αν δεν είμαστε βέβαιοι ότι η αποτελεσματικότητα των σαρωτών θα είναι ικανοποιητική τότε γιατί μπαίνουμε σε όλη αυτήν τη διαδικασία; Νομίζω ότι η λήψη αυτής της απόφασης, της ένταξης δηλαδή των σαρωτών σώματος στο σύστημα ασφαλείας των αεροδρομίων, είναι πάρα πολύ πρόωρη, πάρα πολύ βεβιασμένη: υπάρχουν πάρα πολλά ζητήματα που παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Prin rezoluţia adoptată în iulie, Parlamentul a solicitat condiţii minime comune fără de care scanerele corporale nu pot fi introduse pe lista metodelor autorizate de control de securitate în aeroporturi. Am solicitat:

1. Utilizarea scanerelor corporale să utilizeze doar figuri schematice şi să nu se realizeze imagini corporale.

2. Datele să fie utilizate doar pentru perioada efectuării controlului. Ele ar trebui distruse imediat, după ce persoana a trecut prin controlul de securitate şi nu pot fi stocate.

3. Pentru protejarea sănătăţii pasagerilor şi a personalului de securitate, să nu fie permisă utilizarea scanerelor corporale bazate pe raze X.

4. Să existe un bun echilibru între beneficiile obţinute prin utilizarea scanerelor corporale şi investiţiile necesare pentru introducerea lor.

Nu toate aceste solicitări au fost respectate de propunerea Comisiei. Solicit Comisiei retragerea acestei propuneri şi reanalizarea ei prin prisma...

(Preşedintele întrerupe oratorul)

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, después de escuchar el debate, lo que quiero es confirmar la posición de nuestro Grupo y de la Comisión de Transportes.

Estamos todos convencidos y queremos, ya, seguridad contra los actos terroristas. Y queremos –porque la Comisión así lo ha manifestado– que haya también escáneres. Pero la Comisión de Transportes dijo claramente que los escáneres tenían que garantizar también la intimidad y, por tanto, tenía que aparecer un tipo de figura determinada.

Mi pregunta a la Comisión es si ha analizado suficientemente esa posibilidad, la posibilidad que acordó la Comisión de Transportes, porque da la impresión de que en el fondo de todo esto, para la opción que presenta hoy la Comisión, hay un tema exclusivamente comercial.

A mí me gustaría preguntarles si han profundizado suficientemente sobre quién o qué empresas...

(El Presidente interrumpe a la oradora)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Používanie telových skenerov má nesporne svoje výhody a môže prispieť k zvýšeniu bezpečnosti v leteckej doprave. Jedným z pozitív je skutočnosť, že dokážu detegovať nielen kovové predmety. Toto je plus práve v dnešnej dobe, keď potenciálne zbrane pozostávajú zo súčastí z rôznych materiálov.

Metóda skenovania musí byť však prijateľná z hľadiska zachovania súkromia cestujúcej verejnosti. K dispozícii musia byť len schematické zobrazenia a akékoľvek takto získané údaje musia byť zničené hneď po tom, ako osoba prejde bezpečnostnou kontrolou. Zároveň je rovnako dôležité vylúčenie akejkoľvek radiácie či vplyvov ohrozujúcich zdravie pasažierov. Samotné skenovanie by malo prebiehať formou náhodného výberu a prípadné odmietnutie by nemalo automaticky viesť k podozreniu. Ak cestujúci kontrolu odmietne, musí sa ale podrobiť alternatívnemu druhu bezpečnostnej kontroly zaručujúcej rovnakú úroveň bezpečnosti.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). - Consider că, cel puţin la stadiul tehnologic actual, scanerele de securitate nu oferă destule garanţii pentru a putea fi folosite în aeroporturile din Uniunea Europeană. În afară de faptul că unele dintre aceste scanere încalcă dreptul la intimitate prin crearea de imagini corporale, ele sunt un pericol real şi pentru sănătatea umană. Se vorbeşte despre faptul că acestea produc o cantitate admisibilă de emisii nocive. Vreau să atrag atenţia că aceste radiaţii minime nu dispar din corpul uman, ci se adiţionează până când ating un prag la care efectul lor este devastator. Acest lucru este cu atât mai periculos pentru pasagerii frecvenţi ai liniilor aeriene, care ar trebui să suporte în fiecare an sute de iradieri ale scanerelor. Prin urmare, atât timp cât studiile şi tehnologiile disponibile nu dovedesc în mod clar ...

(Preşedintele întrerupe oratorul)

  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.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Kūno skaitytuvai, kaip vienas iš galimų techninių sprendimų saugiam oro susisiekimui užtikrinti, yra labai rimtas klausimas, susijęs su piliečių saugumu, panaudojant naujoviškas technologijas, todėl džiugu, kad šiandien Komisija teikia kūno skaitytuvų poveikio asmens sveikatai ir pagrindinėms žmogaus teisėms įvertinimą. Be jokios abejonės, susisiekimo oru saugumo užtikrinimas yra labai svarbus ir būtinas, tačiau privalome išsiaiškinti, kokį poveikį mūsų sveikatai, pagrindinėms teisėms, privatumui, asmens orumui ir duomenų apsaugai daro sukurtos priemonės tokiam saugumui užtikrinti. Europos Parlamentas savo priimtoje rezoliucijoje dėl kūno skaitytuvų poveikio ir ne vienų diskusijų metu išreiškė susirūpinimą dėl galimo žmogaus teisės į privatumą pažeidimo, radiacijos poveikio sveikatai ir išlaidų specialios įrangos įsigijimui pagrįstumo. Taigi, prieš pradėdami naudoti kūno skaitytuvus, turime konkrečiai žinoti, ar šios techninės saugumo priemonės užtikrins efektyvią asmenų apsaugą keliaujant oru ir ar jos bus tikrai saugios, efektyvios ir pagrįstos. Be to, norėčiau atkreipti dėmesį į tai, kad taikant naujas technines priemones, kuriomis norima pasiekti aukštą saugumo lygį oro uostuose, taip pat yra labai svarbu nustatyti ribas tarp žmogaus teisių ir paties saugumo, nes tos priemonės susijusios ne tik su piliečių apsauga, bet ir poveikiu jų sveikatai, teisėms bei laisvėms.