BETA

26 Amendments of Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT related to 2012/2308(INI)

Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
A. whereas Parliament's estimates for 2014 put the overall budget at EUR 1 808 144 206, with costs directly related to the geographic dispersion estimated at EUR 180 000 000between EUR 169 million and EUR 204 million;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas since the beginning of the current legislature, both individual committees and the plenary have made several specific requests to the European Parliament's administration to provide comprehensive, detailed and reliable estimates of the additional costs relating to each of the three places of work;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas, the numbers provided by the Secretary-General's report to the Bureau of September 2002 are the last overall cost estimates available;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the 2002 Secretary-General's estimate was confirmed by the joint working group report of the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets on Parliament's budget for 2012, when complementing the EUR 148 million estimate by the EUR 25 million of annual amortisation cost for the Strasbourg buildings that need to be taken into account since the purchase of named buildings;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 13 #
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
1 Economic impact of the presence of theBa. whereas the European Parliament's economic impact on the city and region of Strasbourg is low in comparison with other European bodies with permanent staff there, contributing some 223 jobs compared to the almost 3000 permanent employees of the Council of Europe an Institutions in Strasbourg, CityConsult Médiascopie EDR Group, January 2011.d a further 4000 employees associated with Eurocorps, the European Court for Human Rights, Arte and diplomats, which translates into some 17million Euro gains from the seat of the EP at Strasbourg and some 400 million Euro for the other bodies1 that contribute regularly and permanently to the local economy;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
– having regard to the parliament's vote on 23 October 2012, which saw a majority of 78% of Members call on EU governments to revise the issue of parliament's official seat; Strasbourg;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas a reply given to the EP Budgetary Control Committee in preparation for the EP discharge for 2011 does not provide estimates on the potential savings, but only a partial estimate of the additional costs of the Strasbourg seat; whereas this EUR 55 million estimate does not include many budget lines that were included in previous and following estimates, namely the cost of data processing, equipment and movable property, travel expenses of political groups as well as any potential savings connected to time lost travelling (totalling EUR 68 million); whereas this estimate provides lower numbers on several budget lines than both previous and following estimates without providing any justification (totalling EUR 25 million);
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas none of these estimates includes the additional costs of the European Parliament's geographic dispersion on the other European Union institutions, in particular the European Commission and Council, EU member states' representations, journalists and civil society representatives;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas ¾ of members believe that the EP should find significant structural savings and these could be found in re- evaluating the EP's geographical dispersion of places of work, illustrated by a breakdown of the costs of Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg set out in a transparent and credible format to standards expected from a major public body;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the historical reasons for the European bodies permanently seated in Strasbourg are well-known in respect e.g. the European Court for Human Rights and the Council of Europe, and while the European Assembly /Parliament for convenience initially used the latter's Chamber, the choice of Brussels as the seat of the European Commission and of NATO reflect the EU's aspirations for a continent progressively united in prosperity and security;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)
Ce. whereas situating the co-legislators of the EU in a single place does not undermine the tradition of polycentrism in the EU but bears significant efficiency and transparency gains for EU citizens;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas, in many Member States, parliament's seat is laid down either in the Constitution or by law and whereas the European Parliament is a co-legislator of European law and can call for changes of the European treaties under article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)
Cg. whereas during the European Year of Citizens it is appropriate to show that their voice is not only heard but that their directly elected representatives are taking action on their behalf in order to end the monthly travel between the EP's places of work;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas the European institutions must do everything to further European political integration and bridge the perceived distance from citizens by tackling a major structural issue of the institutions and promoting European understanding, transparency, accountability and coherence by having the EU's decision making bodies in one place;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)
Ci. whereas 6% of the EU budget is intended for administrative purposes and that the European Union, with a relatively small operating budget for 500 million inhabitants, must set an example in these times of crisis by streamlining its own budgetary impact as much as possible without prejudice to the proper functioning of the European Parliament, adding that the efficiency gains of having a single seat near the co-legislator cannot be ignored;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that while the seats of the European Institutions are enshrined in the Treaties, so is article 48, which allows for a proposal for treaty change;
2013/07/17
Committee: BUDG
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. whereas MEPs have repeatedly requested the Parliament's Administration procure for a Eurobarometer survey which asks European citizens for their views on Parliament's split-site arrangement;
2013/06/24
Committee: PETI
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q a (new)
Qa. whereas Members have repeatedly requested up-to-date breakdowns of the financial, environmental and social costs of the parliament's working arrangements, because the Administration has yet to produce a consistent and coherent set of figures;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the Parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
2013/06/24
Committee: PETI
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that any future decision by Parliament on its working arrangements must allow sufficient time for debate and reflection, as well as for an orderly transition; requests a study into the one- off cost of moving all parliament's activities to a single working location;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Administration to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential savings for our budget if the parliament had only one place of work, in Brussels; asks that this analysis includes the budgetary aspects and the ancillary costs such as savings made as a result of loss of working time and efficiency;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Asks the Administration to procure that EMAS or suitable external consultants provide an analysis of the environmental aspects if the parliament held all its plenary sessions in Brussels;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Asks the Administration to procure that the parliament's Medical Service provide an analysis of the health effects of the monthly session in Strasbourg on Members, staff and assistants;
2013/07/05
Committee: AFCO
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the relevant services of the European Parliament to make an assessment of the agreement between the authorities in Luxembourg and the European Parliament, on the number of staff to be present in Luxembourg, taking into account a revision of the Parliament's needs; this assessment shall include suggestions on how to renegotiate this agreement, without prejudice to the legal provisions;
2013/06/24
Committee: PETI
Amendment 136 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on Parliament's Administration to procure for Eurobarometer or similar professional polling service to conduct a survey of EU citizens' views on the maintenance of Parliament's split site working arrangement by 1 January 2014, with specific reference to the financial, environmental and efficiency costs of this arrangement;
2013/06/24
Committee: PETI