26 Amendments of Philip BRADBOURN related to 2011/2202(DEC)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the year saw consolidation and further modernisation of the administration, with a stronger focus on core activities, restructuring of services, better use of modern technologies and increased interinstitutional cooperation which together ensured; that budgetary and staffing resources were used in the most cost-effective way;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that this overall high level of implementation is partly due to two targeted transfers made before the end of the financial year 2010 (EUR 9 240 000 for the purchase of a Europe House in Sofia and EUR 10 923 000 for four major IT projects); welcomes the fact that no mopping-up transfers took place between 2010 and 2011; encourages, however, its administration to pursue the objective of better and clearer budget planning and discipline in the future and notes that to put buildings, IT or any other important expenditure in the budget would provide more financial clarity; believes that all significant expenditure should be fully planned for in the annual budget and not arise as a result of a need to mop-up underspends;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Insists that reinforcing the security of Parliament's buildings and their immediate surroundings must be given the highest priority; requests that as part of this work security in the car parks should be improved, and that the access to Members' offices in Parliament should be controlled;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Notes that the communications budget consists of three main strands: 'legislative', 'values' and 'elections'; believes that the public will be better able to come to a view about the importance of voting with reference to real issues; proposes that in the run-up to the 2014 European elections all possible resources should be diverted to the 'legislative' strand so that the public might be given the maximum information about the actual work of Members of the European Parliament;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Welcomes the opening of the Visitors' Centre on 14 October 2011 (originally planned for the 2009 European elections); deplores however the considerable delay and cost overrun of this project; calls for a review of the Visitors' Centre to take place once it has been operational for a twelve month period in order to assess the public reaction, its strengths/weaknesses, and its cost/benefits with a view to ensuring it is delivering value for money;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 d (new)
Paragraph 42 d (new)
42d. Believes that Parliament should not be in the business of running museums; proposes that if this House of European History is established it be made an independent body with full responsibility for its activities and resources;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 e (new)
Paragraph 42 e (new)
42e. Believes that the House of European History project should be put on hold, especially given the current economic and financial climate;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Regrets that EuroparlTV cannot be considered to be a success story in view of its very low number of direct individual users (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) in spite of the considerable financing that it received in 2010, amounting to some EUR 9 000 000 (item 3 2 4 6); welcomes the efforts made to reduce this budget by 14 % (to EUR 8 000 000) in 2011 and in the subsequent years; calls however for a cost- benefit evaluation of Europarl TVbelieves that the time has come to admit that this project has not met expectations and that the resources would be better deployed elsewhere; proposes that the Parliament should focus on using the independent media;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes that the costs relating to the LUX Prize in 2010 were EUR 380 666,18; is concerned that the costs rose for the event in 2011 to EUR 573 722,08 (by over 50 %) and looks forward to a sharp reverse in this trend from 2012 onwards; specifically requests that the following activities be curtailed in order to contain costs: - expensive internal promotion within the buildings of Parliament, - promotional activities at international film festivals, - the large expenditure associated with the costs of organising 'mini-LUX' events in the Member States;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Notes the expenditure of the prizes for the period 2009-11: 2009 2010 2011 Journalists prize €105 000 €118 059 €154 205 Sakharov Prize €300 000 €645 542 €652 348 Charlemagne Youth €24 000 €34 000 €35 000 Prize LUX prize €320 000 €380 666 €573 722 Totals: €749 000 €1 178 267 €1 415 276
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)
Paragraph 45 b (new)
45b. Believes that the 89 % increase in the expenditure on the prizes between 2009 and 2011 used funds that could have been better deployed elsewhere; calls for future expenditure on prizes to be brought back down to the levels of 2009;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 c (new)
Paragraph 45 c (new)
45c. Calls on the Bureau to cancel the LUX prize on the grounds that Parliament is a political not a cultural institution and so is not an appropriate body to judge creative activities such as art, books, music, or films;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 c (new)
Paragraph 47 c (new)
47c. Believes that there is an inherent contradiction between having a highly centralised communications strategy and budget as well as a large expenditure on the buildings and staff of the information offices in the Member States; proposes consideration be given to two options to end this contradiction: 1) a substantial reduction in the number/costs of the information offices; or 2) a substantial decentralisation of the communications budget to the information offices, under the supervision of a cross-party panel of local members in each Member State, in order to be well adapted to the diverse information needs of the public and to be more closely in touch with the national political and media situation;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Notes the opening in April 2010 of the EP Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington and the system of one-year missions for four officials put in place in October 2010; observes that, although the creation of the Washington Office has not entailed the creation of any new posts, other costs have inevitably been incurred; calls for a review of its structure, activities and costs to be presented to the Bureau with copies to the relevant competent committees;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Notes that staff numbers have increased dramatically over recent years; calls for staff numbers to be immediately frozen at their current levels and subsequently reviewed to identify where reductions can be made;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Points to the difficulties in recruiting officials or agents from certain Member States such as Germany, the UK, Austria or the Netherlands for which the proportion of staff in Parliament's Secretariat is significantly lower than the ‘demographic weight’ of the given country within the Union and observes the relatively high numbers of staff of holding the nationality of Belgium (13,6 %) or Luxemburg (2,3 %), as a result of the working places of Parliament; asks the Bureau to review recruitment procedures and requirements to ascertain what part they may play in creating difficulties to recruit staff from these Member States;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Notes that, in 2010, there were 33 200 missions (official trips) representing a total of 98 629 mission days, most of them involving travel between Parliament's three places of work; reiterates the need to avoid unnecessary missions between the three working places and the costs they entail with more systematic and documentary justifications and better monitoring; requests that the Secretary General report, as part of the discharge procedure, on any savings made as a result of further rationalisation; asks the Secretary-General specifically to review the posts based outside of Brussels, particularly for those staff members who undertake repeated missions to Brussels, to ascertain if they need to be relocated; suggests that the agreement with the Luxembourg authorities, which fixes the number of Parliament staff based in Luxembourg without regard to any evolving needs of Parliament, may need to be revised;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57a. Notes that the European Council, whilst justifiably calling for austerity on the part of Parliament, continues to deny it the opportunity to make the considerable savings that would arise from ceasing to hold meetings in Strasbourg;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63 a (new)
Paragraph 63 a (new)
63a. Notes that the property portfolio of Parliament has substantially increased over recent years; insists that no additional buildings be purchased or leased during the next multiannual financial framework period;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 c (new)
Paragraph 64 c (new)
64c. Notes the decision to purchase the Trebel building which will become available in 2017; proposes however that no further building(s) be leased to substitute for this building during the redevelopment project even if this means that refurbishments and non-urgent maintenance on existing buildings must be delayed until its completion;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 f (new)
Paragraph 64 f (new)
64f. Reiterates its call for more diverse catering options within the buildings of Parliament by ceasing to offer a monopoly to a single catering provider when current contracts reach the end of their term;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Notes that final appropriations for the Travel Agency amounted to EUR 1 438 000 in 2010, with a high commitment rate (94 %); further notes that it obtains negotiated prices from airlines, which means that there is an average price for the best service; stresses however that this does not mean that, for a specific day or journey, it is not possible to get better prices by booking directly with travel operators; calls on the existing travel agent contractor to make better efforts to ensure that the cheapest options are always proposed to Members and staff; further calls on the appropriate directorate to monitor service levels provided by the Travel Agency and whether this represents value for money and to report back to the appropriate parliamentary committee by the end of 2012;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70 a (new)
Paragraph 70 a (new)
70a. Believes that Parliament should cease awarding monopolistic contracts wherever possible and that reduced costs and a better service for Members and staff would result from having more than one travel agency at their disposal;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Notes the Bureau decisions of 17 June 2009 and of 18 October 2010 to extend the areas with wireless network access (Wi-Fi) in Parliament covering the Chamber, committee rooms, Members' offices and public spaces both in Brussels and Strasbourg but expresses concern at the high cost of this project (1st phase of the project: EUR 7 878 000);
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87 d (new)
Paragraph 87 d (new)
87d. Suggests to the Bureau that it should put on its agenda a discussion on the discharge resolution following its adoption by plenary;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87 e (new)
Paragraph 87 e (new)
87e. Reiterates its call for the Bureau to issue 'green papers' to all Members on key policy areas regarding matters within its competence before taking any definitive decisions in order to stimulate a wider debate within political groups and the house as a whole;