 |
 |
Secret EU legislation unacceptable
February 13, 2007 4:15 PM
Sarah in the European Parliament
Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament have instigated a debate challenging the European Commission about the secrecy of recent EU aviation security regulations. One concerns restrictions on liquids and gels like drinks, make-up and toiletries that air passengers can carry in hand luggage and the other concerns the operation of passenger-scanners.
Liberal Democrat European justice spokeswoman Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP said:
"Everyone wants to be safe in the air, and there may be some limited information on technical specifications which we don't want terrorists to see. But to keep all the liquids restrictions secret contravenes the basic democratic principle that laws must be made public so citizens can contest them or seek legal remedy if they are abused or applied in a heavy-handed or inconsistent way."
"The Commission produced no real justification for the secrecy. It looks foolish anyway since civil liberties organisation Statewatch has published a copy of the liquids annex on its website!"
"Regarding the secret annex on performance requirements of walk-through passenger scanners, there has been much talk of scanners which 'strip' passengers so they appear naked to the operators. My constituents would surely be as interested as I am to see the secret annex and know what privacy safeguards apply!"
Notes
The annex on liquids restrictions referred to is available on the Statewatch website at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jan/eu-liquids-regulation-annex-2006.pdf
Full text of the ALDE group's question to the Commission (which concerned only the liquids regulation as the other only came to light later):
The Council has adopted Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1448/2006(1) on aviation security containing a secret annex with restrictive measures on liquids that passengers are allowed to carry on aircraft in their hand luggage.
Can the Commission explain and provide assurances on why the contents of the annex, which has binding effects on individual persons, are kept secret, in breach of the democratic principle of publicity of laws? What sanctions are applied in the event of refusal to follow or of breach of the rules? How is it intended to avoid pure arbitrariness in the practical implementation of a secret rule and its exceptions? How can a person contest a decision or a sanction, on the spot or at a later stage, and look for legal remedy, if the rule is secret?
What is the justification for the measure? Why and on what basis has the Commission proposed such a measure, what specialised expertise did it gather before taking the decision, and has a proportionality, necessity and efficiency test, both in terms of citizens' rights and of security, been applied?
Why is the application of the measure not harmonised and left to the discretionary powers of Member States, airport authorities and security services? Will the European Commission evaluate and inform the public and the EP on the practical consequences of the measure on individuals, and their rights, as well as on airport land services management (checked luggage, connecting flights, etc.)? Are there categories of persons or VIPs, also when flying on commercial flights, that can be exempted from these rules?
Will it review the measure, so as to learn from experience in its application and to tackle the aforementioned issues, as well as the problem of the seizure of items from travellers in transit on EU territory? If so, when?
Does it agree that the comitology procedure applied does not allow for proper parliamentary and judicial control, in breach of democratic principles and European standards? What does it suggest in order to overcome such serious shortcomings?
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats