92002E2080

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against the European security industry in the USA by the new US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act

In response to the attacks of 11 September 2001, the US administration promptly on 19 November 2001 adopted the US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act. The US administration has nationalised all private security firms operating in the aviation sector. Security checks are for the time being to be carried out by federal enterprises, but in future only by State enterprises and possibly security firms based in the USA. As a result, private businesses from the European Union (including Securitas, Securicor and ICTS) can no longer operate in the USA, which manifestly constitutes discrimination against the European security industry.

Moreover, the US administration has abolished the insurance liability cap (i.e. limitation of liability on condition that insurance is taken out) for European security firms and declared it applicable only to American businesses. In the event of a fresh terrorist attack, European security firms will therefore bear full liability, with all the associated financial consequences, whereas US firms will be partially covered by insurance.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

If so, does the Commission regard the US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act as discriminatory against the European security industry?

If so, what steps will the Commission take in relation to the USA to remedy the situation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1820/02 and P-2080/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

Following the events of September 11 the United States (US) authorities passed new legislation on aviation security entitled the US Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

The act removes the liability cap for aviation security companies, while leaving it for adjacent activities.

After a period of nationalised operation of the sector, Section 108 of the act permits private companies to undertake security screening at airports on the condition that the private screening company is owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

Under its commitment to opening world markets in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) the United States has signed up to full market access in the field of security services (with specific exceptions for the states of Maine and New York).

Therefore, it would appear that the new US legislation does conflict with these commitments taken by the United States under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Commission in the first instance will contact the US authorities to seek a solution to this issue. It is, therefore, not appropriate to envisage retaliatory action at this stage of proceedings.

The Commission is in regular contact with the European providers of security services, and will continue consult both on the issue of discrimination on the access to the US security market once this market is again being opened to private operators, and on the efforts to have the liability cap for security operators re-instated.