Activities of Eva LICHTENBERGER related to 2010/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Aviation security with a special focus on security scanners - Liquids (LAG) ban on aircrafts (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners PDF (257 KB) DOC (177 KB)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (30)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas Member States are entitled to apply more stringent measures than the common basic standards required by European legislation and may thus introduce securitbody scanners on their territory; whereas, in this case, they must act on the basis of a risk assessment and in compliance with EU law; whereas these measures must be relevant, objective, non- discriminatory and proportional to the risk that is being addressed (Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008), (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the introduction of securitbody scanners by the Member States in either of the above two cases makes genuine one- stop security impossible; whereas if the present situation continues the operating conditions that apply to the Member States will not be uniform and will therefore not benefit passengers,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas health represents an asse right to be preservotected and exposure to ionising radiation from certain types of scanners, such as those emitting X-rays with cumulative effects, needs to be analysed; whereas this represvents a risk that should be avoided,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas concerns over health, the rights to privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, non-discrimination and data protection can be duly guaranteed where security scanners are used properlyneed to be addressed both in terms of technology and use before the introduction of body scanners can be considered,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas qualification, satisfactory social standards and training for security staff is aare crucial elements that isare necessary in order to guarantee a high level of aviation security, which must be compatible with a way of treating passengers that preserves their dignity as individuals and thus should be integrated into the review of the Directive 96/67/EC on Groundhandling Services at EU Airports,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes the view that somit is not yet sufficiently proven that even those scanning methods that are effective and quick for passengers, with due respect for the time taken at checkpoints, would constitute considerable added value in aviation security; calls on the Commission to consider its proposals within a broad context of proportionality and in a well balanced context, going beyond a focus, almost limited on technologic options;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to research on the use of other techniques to detect explosives in the field of aviation security;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to develop an integrated risk- analysis system for suspicious passengbody scanners and for checks on luggage and cargo, based on all available information, in particular the information provided by the police, intelligence services, customs, experienced air security services and transport undertakings; takes the view that the entire system should be informed by the search for effectiveness, but based on respect for the principle of non-discrimination;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Encourages the Commission while proposing a review of the Directive 96/67/EC on Groundhandling Services at EU Airports, to integrate efficient criteria for the employed in the field of security services at airports on their qualification, regular education, experience and social status; stresses the need to support and promote better security networking, management and motivation within the personal;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Stresses that in the procedure before being submitted to a body scan or related to the refusal of a body scan any form of profiling based on, for example, sex, race, colour, ethnicity, genetic features, language, religion or belief is unacceptable;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure effective cooperation, security management and exchange of information among all the authorities and services involved, and between the authorities, security and air transport undertakings, at both European and national level;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission regularly to revise the list of authorised screening methods and the conditions for their implementation, in line with possible problems, experienced in practise, and technological progress, in order to provide a high level of detection performance and passengers and workers rights and interests in keeping with that progress;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to propose adding securitensure that concerns over health, the rights to privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, non-discrimination and data protection are addressed before proposing to add body scanners to the list of authorised screening methods; if the Commission does decide to propose to introduce body scanners to the list of authorised screening methods, it should do so together with appropriate rules for their use, as set out in this resolution;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that the use of securitbody scanners must be based on common rules that not only lay down detection performance but also impose the necessary safeguards to protect the health and fundamental rights and interests of passengers and workers;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Proposes, more specifically, that the Commission should revise the rules on the use of securitbody scanners to ensure that the provisions on the protection of health and fundamental rights are adapted to technological progress;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that, even though 100% aviation security cannot be guaranteed, the detection performance of security scanners is potentially higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non- metallic objects and liquids, whilst frisking (full hand-search) causes more irritation and is more likely to be rejected than a scannerthough firm evidence of their effectiveness will need to be presented before we ask European Citizens and tax payers to contribute towards their acquisition; takes the view that body scanners using any form of x-ray technology will not offer additional security benefits given the many categories of people that will need to be exempted for reasons of health protection;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes the view that the installation of securitbody scanners, or the decision not to install them, falls within the responsibility and freedom of decision of the EU Member States;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that where an EU Member State decides to install securitbody scanners, they must meet the minimum standards and requirements set by the EU for all the EU Member States, without prejudice to the right of the Member States to apply more stringent measures;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Takes the view that passengers should be given a choice in using securitbody scanners whereby, if they refuse, they would be obliged to submit to alternative screening methods that guarantee security to at least the same levels of effectiveness as security scanners; underlines that passengers must be well informed about these options;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that exposure to doses of ionising radiation above the recommended annual limits cannot be acceptable; believes, therefore, that X-ray transmission imaging should not be used in systematicany possible health risk, including long-term risks due to exposure to doses of ionising radiation should be excluded; calls in this regard for any form of X-ray technology to be explicitly excluded from the usage in security screening;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Points out that the Member States have a responsibility to assess risks in accordance with Directive 96/29/Euratomby radiation and they can adopt more stringent rules than those set out by the EU in that directiveinternational rules or EU legislation; points out, further, that some Member States do not permit the exposure of people to ionising radiation other than for medical purposes;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Believes that such protection can be better achieved when a standard figure is used, and that the use of body images should be permitted only with the appropriate guarantees and on an exceptional basis;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that images should not be stored for longer than is necessary to ensure aviation security, that they should be destroyed once they are no longer necessary for the intended purposes, and that they should not be used for purposes other than to detect prohibited objects;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Takes the view that the operating rules must ensure that people are not selected to pass through a securitbody scanner on the basis of discriminatory criteria;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Takes the view that, when images are used, they should not be linked to the passenger's identity and measures should be taken to ensure that passengers cannot be identified with images of any part of the body unless this is necessary;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission to propose that special training that takes into account the impact on personal dignity, health and the protection of personal data be provided for security staff responsible for using securitbody scanners;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the Member States, to draw up a code of conduct on the use of securitbody scanners which requires airports to carry out scanning in such a way as to respect passengers' fundamental rights;