10 Amendments of Sabrina PIGNEDOLI related to 2021/2152(DEC)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes from the Court’s report the emphasis of matter drawing attention to the estimate of the total cost for completing its delivery obligations for the ITER project in 2042, assessed by the Joint Undertaking at EUR 17 968 050 000 (in 2020 values) and to the fact that changes in key assumptions concerning the estimate and the risk exposure could lead to significant costs increases and/or to further delays in the implementation of the ITER project; notes that among the key assumptions the ITER baseline approved in November 2016 by the Council of ITER Organization leading to First Plasma in December 2025, and the start of the Deuterium-Tritium phase in December 2035 is maintained; notes in contrast that the 2010 baseline estimated the achievement of the construction phase in 2020, and that the current ITER baseline approved in 2016 is considered to be the earliest possible technically achievable date; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard; notesstresses with concern that the Court’s report refers to in particular changes in nuclear safety requirements that are under the ultimate authority of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, the cost estimate for the Hot Cell Complex which has not been revised, as well as requirement changes which prevent the joint undertaking from developing a credible cost estimate;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is aware of the fact that in addition to the construction phase, the Joint Undertaking will have to contribute to the ITER operational phase after 2035 and to the subsequent ITER deactivation and decommissioning phases; notes that the contribution to the deactivation and decommissioning phases were estimated, respectively, at EUR 95 540 000 and EUR 180 200 000 (at 2001 values); questions whether the project is actually suitable, not least in view of its environmental impact and the nuclear waste that may need to be disposed of;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking’s calculation method for the 2020 annual membership contributions did not comply with the respective provisions of its Financial Regulation and instead of using the contribution estimates as adopted by the Governing Board, the Joint Undertaking levied the contributions based on a yet to be adopted draft estimate; calls on the Joint Undertaking to comply with the provisions of its Financial Regulation and to report, in a comprehensive and transparent manner, to the discharge authority on the reasons of having departed from the use of the Governing Board estimate; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that it has adopted the measure to approve the draft Single Programming Document for the following year by the last Governing Board of the year to avoid this issue happening again;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes with concern from the 9th Annual Assessment that the panel of assessors detected a lack of a common project identity and common goal, in particular at managerial level between F4E and the ITER Organization and that these “soft” elements of project management are of central importance; wonders whether this situation might not affect the effectiveness of the project and calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard; notes furthermore from the Annual Assessment that the Joint Undertaking needs to reinforce its technical core expertise in the fields concerning on- going and future critical activities in relation to functional requirements of ITER Organization and technical specifications and compliance of industrial contractors; calls on the Joint Undertaking to follow the recommendations issued in the annual assessment and to report to the discharge authority in that regard;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that with a view to preventing and managing conflicts of interest, the Anti-Fraud and Ethics Officer organised a training for new staff and specific training for F4E managers; urges the joint undertaking to keep improving its fraud prevention measures;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Is concerned by the poor working conditions exposed by trade unions and whistleblowers, and also reported in the media, which are the result of an excessive workload placing staff under stress and pressure and having an impact on their mental health; in this regard, is alarmed by the fact that, in recent months, one employee committed suicide, another attempted suicide and two others suffered heart attacks;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Notes that a preliminary internal investigation determined that it was not clear whether the employee's suicide was connected to the working environment, but points out that the same employee left a note in which they made clear that 'burnout at work' was a factor and, in an earlier email to a representative of the Administration dated 22 January 2020, they wrote about their exposure to 'a severe case of harrassment'; believes, therefore, that there needs to be an independent investigation into what went on, as also called for by the F4E Director;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Notes that there have been several cases of unjustified dismissal which have resulted in judgments from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) obliging the ITER Organisation to pay compensation; believes that this conduct not only undermines the principles of fairness which should underpin a joint undertaking in receipt of EU funds, but also damages the financial interest of the Union;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)
Paragraph 16 d (new)
16d. questions whether staff and experts working for the joint undertaking have true freedom of expression in view of the alleged reprisals against those who have gone public with their doubts about the project;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes with concern from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking’s DACC application has never been subject to an internal control audit, to ensure the compliance of user rights to authorise transactions with delegations assigned to staff and therefore there is a high risk that non-compliance due to breaches of the Joint Undertaking’s delegation policy may not have been identified nor mitigated; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that a validation of the user right is being performed by a third party to provide assurance; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;