7 Amendments of Monika HOHLMEIER related to 2012/2308(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Citation
Citation
– having regard to its repeated ¾ majority votes for ending Parliament’s dispersion in three places of work, e.g. in its resolutions of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 – all sections*1 and of 6 February 2013 on the guidelines for the 2014 budget procedure – sections other than the Commission*2, and in its decision of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I – European Parliament*3,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
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 dispersion estimated at EUR 1852 300 000 000(of which EUR 28 300 000 of annual depreciation are of theoretical nature and thus do not constitute a budgetary expense);
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas treaty Protocol 6 states that Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, while its committees meet in Brussels and that the General Secretariat remains in Luxembourg;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the time incurred in 2011 due to the monthly travel to the four-day plenary part-session was 69 562 days for officials and other agents (of which 3,115 mission days from Information Offices would also be incurred if Parliament were located in a single place) and 31 316 days for accredited parliamentary assistants, costing € 16 652 490 for officials and other agents and € 5 944 724 for accredited parliamentary assistants;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas these figures do not show the cost of travel by political group staff (estimated to be at least an extra EUR 5 million) or by staff from the other EU institutions attending part-sessions, nor do they take into account other dispersion- related costs, such as loss of working time, related overtime payments, extra costs incurred by staff, e.g. for babysitters, and the potential differences in MEPs' travel costs (which totalled EUR 72 103 309 in 2012) arising from the different means of transport and routes that need to be used to get to either place of workby staff from the other EU institutions attending part-sessions, nor extra costs indirectly incurred by staff;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Asks the Administration for an analysis of the savings that could be made if Parliament had only one plReiterates its request as stated in its resolution of 6th February 2013 on the Guidelines for the 2014 Budget procedure - Other Sections, that the Secretary- General and the Bureau provide Members with up-to-date figures and information on the financial and environmental impacet of workthe multiple seat arrangement; asks that, in order to identify savings for greater efficiency, this should include not only structural costs (buildings, maintenance, security, insurance, energy, environmental impact, travel, logistics, restaurants, etc.) but also ancillary costs;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees that Parliament would be more effective and cost-efficient if it were located in a sReiterates its call, as stated in its resolution of 23 October 2012 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, for the Member States to revise the issue of Parliament’s seat and workingle place; resolves, therefore, to propose Treaty changes under Article 48 of the TEUs in the next revision of the Treaty by amending Protocol 6;