48 Amendments of Monika HOHLMEIER related to 2022/2082(DEC)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that, in particular, the Court further examined a payment of EUR 74.9 million related to the purchase of the Scholl building on Rue Wiertz, the purchase of which was financed from funds that were not used during the COVID-19 crisis and carried over from 2020; notes that, when seeking offers, Parliament used award criteria that weighted 50% of points for both price and quality of the proposed building; notes that Parliament received two offers and awarded the contract to the tenderer proposing the Scholl building, significantly closer to Parliament’s main site but 30% more expensive per square metre than; underlines that the purchase of the building proposed by theallows, among other, tenderer; notes that the Court considered that Parliament’s award criteria significantly reduced the importance of price as a basis for the purchase decision, making it unlikely that any other offer could have been acceptedo strengthen the security of Parliament’s central complex by excluding any external private property owners, maintain the direct connection to other Parliament buildings, and to preserve for the future investments made so far in the building;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes the response given by Parliament to the Court’s observation that the distance criterion played a major role in the quality criteria (namely a weighting factor of 20/50 quality points), and the possibility of interconnection with the central buildings received an additional weighting factor (4/50 quality points), which led Parliament to consider the Scholl building on Rue Wiertz as the most economically advantageous offer despite the substantial price difference; underlines also that when approving the acquisition the Bureau estimated that the acquisition should be analysed against the situation where Parliament would have not acquired the building. The usufruct contract signed by Parliament in 2009 did not include an exit clause, entailing that Parliament would have in any case had to pay the full amount of due usufruct payments for the remaining contractual period (EUR -24 000 000). Therefore, in the event Parliament would have not acquired the building, it would have paid in any case the usufruct and in addition would have totally also lost the already realised investment. In total, this represents EUR 39 300 000 (the payment of a usufruct during the remaining contractual period, for a total of EUR -24 000 000 plus the loss of all the investments already done by Parliament of a total of EUR 15 300 000);
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls thatWelcomes that pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should bare discussed and voted on by the Bureau, pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation; is deeply disappointed, however, that each year very concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not reflected in the discussions of the Bureau meetings despite the fact; reminds, in light of Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure that the Bureau is responsible to take decisions on financial, organisational and administrative matters concerning Members; highlights, that bothe Bureau members and the Secretary-General are aware of the discharge resolutions and have the capacity to submit proposals under the aforementioned Rule 25; is disappointed that the Secretary-General's written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control are often limited to quoting the current rules without any is composed of democratically elected Members of all political groups; notes, that the members of the Bureau participate in deliberations and vote on resolutions related to Parliament’s draft estimates and discharge procedures; highlights, that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandedmicated discussion in the Bureau and thus, lacking a genuine effort or intention to review those rules in accordance with Parliament’s will; believes that this situation is detrimental to the exercise in March 2020 and until the gradual lifting of sanitary restrictions at the beginning of 2022, the Bureau`s deliberations were focused primarily on decisions aimed at protecting the integrity of dMemocratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodiesbers and staff while ensuring business continuity and implementing practical solidarity measures vis-à-vis the three host Member States of the Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the Bureau has been mandated by the Plenary to decide all administrative, staff and organisational matters concerning Members and is concerned that the decisions of the Bureau often fail to respect the will expressed by the Plenary in discharge resolutions; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands that resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate, transparent manner; recommeminds that the Committeeagendas onf Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau and calls on the Secretary-General to always include a clear list of the Bureau discussions and votes when providing the replies to the discharge resolutionsreau meetings are published beforehand and are made available on Parliament's internet site and that all Bureau discussions and decisions, including the ones in camera, are minuted and, once approved by the Bureau, the minutes are also accessible on Parliament's internet site; recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the impact of the continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 led to substantial transfers within Parliament’s budget, and that a budgetary surplus became available in areas such as travel expenses, organisation and reception of groups of visitors, the operation of Parliament visitors’ centres, in-person training, and lower energy consumption; notes that, at the same time, the pandemic created additional budgetary needs in other areas, notably health and prevention, as well as technical equipment and logistics for multilingual hybrid meetings and votes; observes that a substantial part of the savings were used to amortise the costs of the expansive building policy of the last few years;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Praises the key role of Parliament’s medical services at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response and acknowledges the enormous workload involved, which included treatment, testing and vaccination of staff, providing psychological support and advising on mitigation measures; regrets the factwelcomes the statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations giving the right to a staff annual medical check-up; notes that the staff annual medical check-up washad to be cancelled in 2021 and recalls that is a statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulatio; highlights that the year of 2021 was a challenging year impacted enormously by the COVID-19 pandemic which required most of the extraordinary measures introduced in 2020 to be maintained and adapted to minimise the risk for Members and staff while ensuring that the Parliament remains able to continue its core activities and to fulfil its mandate as democratic representation of the EU citizens; welcomes the creation, in October 2021, of the Medical Preparedness and Crisis Management Unit (MPCMU) made up of staff from the medical services in Brussels and Luxembourg with the objective of enhancing Parliament’s response capacity for future crisis;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that a reduction in cleaning staff was not necessary in Brussels as the buildings remained open and that in Strasbourg and Luxembourg the increase in cleaning needs compensated for the decrease in activity and thus, no losses were incurred by the cleaning providers over the year; notes that at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, the two cleaning contractors in Brussels launched a satisfaction survey among their employees as requested in the 2020 discharge resolution; notes that the employees completed the questionnaire anonymously and that the answers were received and stored on a secured platform; underlines that for the first contractor, the analysis of the results shows that over 90% of the staff is motivated to perform well, receives a good example from their management and feels part of a well united team; notes that for the second contractor, the results were quite similar; notes that, as of 9 November 2022, all cleaning services in Parliament’s premises in Brussels are provided by two new service providers;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses the majorRecalls the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Parliament’s catering staff which led to worsening working conditions and even dismissals; welcomes the solidarity measures implemented from April 2020 to December 2021, namely the provision of ‘charity meals’ and a business continuity fee in the three places of work, that at least helped to safeguard 37 jobs for catering staff; welcomes the fact that there 20 new jobs have been created since the restart of all catering activities in March 2022, but regrets the fact that Parliament’s administration has not communicated how many jobs were lost during the pandemic with the pretext that it is a concession contract; is of the opinioncommends that the Parliament was the first EU institution to launch a food donation program, and that during the COVID 19 crisis, it was the only institution to take action to save employment; welcomes the fact that there 20 new jobs have been created since the restart of all catering activities in March 2022, stresses that the internalization of essential services such as catering and cleaning shwould be considered by the governing bodies, as Parliament has recently done with security and IT services, and it was also made with the CPE2 crèche in Luxembourgrequire massive recruitment of employees and lead to a significant increase in costs;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Observes that Parliament’s interpreters held a strike from June to October 2022 with the aim of improving working conditions, primarily better sound quality and a limitation on the number and duration of interpreting hours of remote speakers as done during the COVID-19 pandemic; regretnotes that Parliament's administration resorted to external interpreting services, with a total cost of EUR 47 324.,80, during this interpreters' strike as this decision jeopardised Parliament’s quality standard for interpretation, damaged its image and more importantly obstructed workers' right to strike; stresses that external remote interpretation services, despite being cost- efficient, should generally not be provided to core meetings of parliamentary bodies; highlights that the core work of Parliament depends on interpretation and thus resorting to external service providers can be optional in duly justified cases; welcomes the Interim Working Arrangements for meetings with remote participation agreed between the trade union, interpreters’ representatives and Parliament’s administration on 17 October 2022 and notes that negotiations on interpreters’ working conditions will be conducted to reflect on Parliament’s post- pandemic working methods; stresses that DG LINC should plan its future interpretation capacity needs with 23% of Conference Interpreting Agents being above 60 years old and look towards recruiting new interpreters in a timely manner;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Calls for a deep reflection on the new ways of working that can reconcile the needs of Parliament’s administration (including team cohesion, internal communication, and on-boarding of newcomers) with the expectations and satisfaction of its staff, which would positively impact their performance as well as the attractiveness of Parliament as an employer; highlights in this context the importance of a genuine social dialogue with the staff representatives on crucial points like a flexible work environment, health and welfare and training and career opportunities; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these new forms of work; suggests that a joint committee be established that assists DG PERS in monitoring the effective implementation and compliance of clear guidelines on teleworking and the right to disconnect that can be adapted to the needs of the different servicessk the Bureau to introduce the possibility for staff, group staff, and APAs to take up to 10 days per year of teleworking outside of the three working places to adapt to modern realities as well as family time obligations, and increase Parliament’s attractiveness as employer; stresses that Parliament should align such teleworking rules with the conditions of other institutions such as the Commission, the Council, the European Court of Auditors, who have all introduced this possibility already;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recalls that, according to Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee represents the interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution and maintains continuous contact with them; points out that decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies often have a significant impact on staff and thus, reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when general matters affecting Parliament’s staff policy are discussed; reiterates furthermore its request to the Secretary-General to take the appropriate measures to implement this key approach, for instance setting up a mandatory consultation procedure with staff representatives during the preparation of the proposals for Bureau decisions on staff matters;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Recalls Parliament’s recommendation to the Commission in its resolution of 18 April 2018 ‘to review its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutions’; is of the opinion that an accelerated appointment procedure and an interview made up of only three questions to select its Secretary-General falls short of what is expected of Parliament in terms of transparency, accountability and good adminisreminds that the appointment procedure of the Secretary-General was a transparent process, where candidates were treation, and it is profoundly damaging to the institution’s reputation; recalls furthermore its own recommendation that officials from staff representatives bodies should sit on Parliament’s senior management selection panels; calls therefore on the Secretary-General to submit a proposal to the Bureau to modify its decision of 16 May 2000 laying down the steps in the procedure for appointing senior officials, in order to enable staff representatives to participed in a fair and equitable manner whilst complying with all necessary eligibility requirements; highlights, that the decision made on the selection of the successful candidate was observers in the Advisory Committee, which is fully compatible with Article 3(4) of Annex III of the Staff Regulationscarried out with a large majority of the Bureau;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Reiterates its demand for APAs to receive the same subsistence allowance as the officials and other statutory staff for their missions to attend the part-sessions in Strasbourg; is of the opinion that the current situation, aggravated by the accumulated increase in prices over the last few years, is unacceptablechallenging as APAs have to travel to Strasbourg to carry out their work in exactly the same way as Parliament's officials and other statutory staff; fails to understand this discriminatory treatment regarding the missions to Strasbourg while expenses incurred by APAs in undertaking missions outside Parliament’s three places of work are reimbursed, mutatis mutandis, in accordance with the rules applicable to officials’ missions; highlights that aligning the daily subsistence allowance with that of statutory staff would also put an end to the discriminatory existence of three levels of allowances to choose from, which is maintained without any administrative or financial justification; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Bureau to modify its decision of 2 October 2017 with the aim of implementing such alignment;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. RegretNotes that the applicable rules currently prohibit APAs to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and committee missions; points out that the technical support that APAs provide during missions is of key importance to the participating Members, in particular when they are involved in the organisation or play a specific role; is concerned that this situation compels Members to resort to financing APAs’ travel with the general expenditure allowance and obliges APAs to use their annual leave, thus jeopardising their insurance coverage, which represents a serious reputational risk for Parliament; regrets that neither the Bureau norasks that the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long-standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determinedand bearing in mind the logistical limits of missions, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as reiterated by several discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demand;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the fact that the Bureau’s last revision of the rules for visitors’ groups introduced the possibility for Members to designate professionals to hold the financial responsibility, which has brought about a decrease of APAs as heads of visitors’ groups to 28%; reiterates that APAs should not be compelled to takehighlights that it is preferred when APAs are not designated as heads of groups as this level onf suchbstantial financial responsibility, which can amount to substantial sums of money in some cases; insists, might compromise the appropriate auditing procedures following the groups’ visits especially in the case when APAs have left the EP and are no longer MEPs’ staff but some of the audits might take place up to 3 years following the groups’ visit; asks therefore, to the Bureau that APAs beo consider eliminateding APAs from the list of permitted heads of groups, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional, such as paying agents or travel agencies, to take up the role or to consider adjusting APAs liability especially in the cases when they are no longer EP’s employees;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Notes that the reduction for trainees in Parliament’s canteens, amounting to EUR 1,00 as of 1 April 2022, is based on previous discounts which are in turn based on the contracts signed and the prices at the time; believes that this reduction is at the moment purely symbolic and absolutely insufficient and calls, therefore, on Parliament’s administration to establishconsider whether an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations could be introduced;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Stresses that transparency, accountability, and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions and particularly Parliament as house of the European democracy; recalls that unethical behaviours must be prevented, persecuted and condemned for significantly damage the credibility and legitimacy of the Union and constitute a serious threat to democracy and public trust; recalls the Court’s conclusions and recommendations in its special report 13/2019 on the ethnical frameworks of Union institutions, as well as Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independentUnion ethics body; ; supports the reinforcement of the existing high ethical standards for politicians and for the guidance on the implementation of ethical rules, while fully respecting the separation of powers between the institutions and the rule of law; underlines that creating additional bodies and structures within the EU institutional framework would only add an additional burden to the work of the EU as the anti- fraud players such as OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust are already tasked to monitor and protect the spending of the EU budget and prevent any possibilities for mismanagement of funds; notes the importance of strengthening the systems in place and to address any shortcomings; notes that the proper application of existing rules can bring significant improvements; highlights that a cooperation agreement between the EPPO and the EP with clear rules and procedures is necessary to further facilitate and maintain the protection EU’s financial interest; such agreement shall provide that the EP reports to the EPPO concerns regarding any criminal conduct in line with the EPPO regulation and the Financial Regulation; reminds that the Treaties of the European Union are the primary law and reside at the top of the hierarchy of norms; the Treaties establish the EU’s institutions and clearly define their competences and decision- making powers (Article 13 TEU); Parliament together with the Council are the co-legislators (Article 14(1) TEU); reminds that under the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme judicial body of the EU (Article 19 TEU); there can be no higher judicial decision-making authority above it; under no circumstances can secondary law contradict or amend primary law; reminds that, therefore, the establishment of an independent ethics body with the power to make binding decisions on the EU’s institutions and organs counter to the separation of powers laid down in the Treaties, would imperatively require a change of the Treaties; stresses that transparency cannot undermine integrity and data protection;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 b (new)
Paragraph 62 b (new)
62b. Notes that the current guidelines for the 2021 interinstitutional agreement to register NGOs and stakeholders are insufficient; stresses the need for a thorough pre-check within the registration in the transparency register to disclose all funding sources; notes that funding from EU funds must be traceable from the direct recipient to the final beneficiary when funds are passed on in a chain; calls to revise the guidelines for the registration in the transparency register to disclose all incoming and outgoing funds, including the transfer of funds from one NGO and stakeholder to another;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
62a. Reiterates that access of NGOs and stakeholders to the European institutions and their funding programmes must be verified in advance; calls for the creation of a public blacklist to ban NGOs from access to and collaboration to the EP that have engaged in actions such as hate speech, incitement to terrorism, religious fundamentalism/extremism, have been convicted of a crime, have been listed in EDES or have otherwise misused, embezzled or mismanaged EU funds;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
62a. Calls for of a ban on friendship groups with third countries that would forbid the activities or meetings of any unofficial groupings of Members that might result in confusion with the official activities of the Parliament with third countries as required by Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure; recommends that third countries should interact with the Parliament through the already existing official Parliament delegations, other committees or through the Committee on Foreign Affairs as required;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concernedobserves, however, that on 28 October 2022 only 245 sitting Members (36,3%) had completed the training on respect and dignity in the workplace; recalls that Parliament has requested on several occasions the implementation of mandatory anti-harassment training courses for all Members; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resoluuggests that the anti- harassment training is brought mandatory not only to Members, but also to staff; welcomes the orientation debate on anti-harassment policies carried out in the Bureau meeting of 21 November 2022 and requests that the Bureau expresses a final position on the topic; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resolution; stresses that the Code of Appropriate Behaviour for Members of the European Parliament seeks to ensure that members behave towards everyone working in the European Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect and without prejudice or discrimination;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that the ‘advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace’ is composed of three members designated by the Appointing Authority (including the chair), two Staff Committee members and one expert advisor from the medical service; notes that the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ is composed of three Quaestors (including the chair), the chair of the first committee, two APA committee members, one staff committee member (only for cases concerning a member of staff), and two expert advisors, namely from the legal and the medical services respectively; is concerned by the lack of independent experts on harassment issues in both committees, as well as the absence of the legal service in the first case; calls for a Secretary-General decision reviewing the composition of both advisory committees and stipulating mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their members;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Notes that, in May 2018, the Bureau approved an upgrade to the former Info-Point in Brussels and that the new Info Hub aims to attract civil society stakeholders, multipliers, partners and specialised interest groups; notes that the Info Hub has had a total cost of roughly EUR 8 400 000 during 2020, 2021 and 2022which includes approximately EUR 6.6 million for renovation works and EUR 1.8 million for communication activities, and that it has welcomed 20 000 visitors since it opened its doors in mid- July 2022; regrets, however, that Members are not aware of these facilities and calls for a better information campaign to publicise their activities and possible uses;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Welcomes the ambitious programme ‘Europe Experience’ that aims to bring the Union close to its citizens; welcomes the fact that the global number of visitors to Europe Experience centres slightly increased from 124 352 in 2020 to 135 835 in 2021, despite the challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic; notes likewise that travel restrictions in 2020 and 2021 provoked delays in building contract procedures (namely in Dublin, Prague, Madrid, Bucharest, Lisbon, Bratislava, Riga and Vilnius) without a negative impact on rent payments as they are triggered by the completion of the fit- out work; notes that in 2021 there were six operational decentralised visitor facilities (Berlin, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Ljubljana, Tallinn and the Parlamentarium Simone Veil in Strasbourg), as well as that Parliament’s Directorate for Communication launched the implementation of five new large-scale exhibitions planned for 2022 (Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Prague and Warsaw), and completed the design of another three new projects (Vienna, Dublin and Luxembourg) while conducting a series of feasibility studies in seven other capitals; regretnotes that the goal to establish facilities in all Union capitals will not be reached before the 2024 Parliament electionsmajority of Europa Experience facilities will be open to the public in 2024, but understands the dependence of this project on the prospects in a rapidly changing real estate market;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Notes that the lunchtime classical music concerts in the Citizens’ Garden were conceived to support classic musicians during the COVID-19 crisis and to demonstrate the value that Parliament places on European musical heritage; notes that 40 concerts were held in 2021 with 4 106 attendees, with a budget of EUR 51 925; supports wholeheartedly this initiative during the extraordinary COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, but questions its relevance in the future and, above all, emphasises that under no circumstances does this initiative serve as a justification for Parliament to commit to renovate the Citizens' Garden;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Notes that eight Members decided, on their own initiative, to observe elections in third countries where Parliament had decided not to send an election observation delegation or had not been invited; notes that in all eight cases the Members were in breach of the Implementing Provisions of the European Parliament’s Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group and that they could not and were not selected to participate in an official Election Observation delegation until the end of 2021; requests that MEPs involved in unofficial election observation missions should be sanctioned for the duration of the mandate;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
Paragraph 87
87. Notes that ‘Parliament’s Buildings Strategy beyond 2019’ is intended to provide a framework for future decisions and to contribute to consolidate Parliament’s real estate portfolio while adapting facilities to the evolution of meeting patterns, going local and closer to citizens through Europa Experience facilities, enhancing security for Parliament’s buildings, and achieving the interconnection of central buildings; notes that Parliament’s administration is currently working on a comprehensive approach to define Parliament’s long-term building policy taking account of the impact of the energy crisis, the rising raw material prices, environmental obligations and new working methods introduced in Parliament; calls on Parliament’s administration to reflect on the need to acquire or construct new buildings in the future; notes the adoption on 8 March 2021 of an integrated facility management strategy focusing on a life cycle management of Parliament’s building portfolio;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
Paragraph 88
88. Expresses concerns about structural problems in the Treves I building; uUnderlines the urgent need for the Trèves I building to be upgraded to the latest energy and environmental norms; underlines the need for urgent measures to fix the unstable heating system, the lack of air conditioning and toilets for persons with reduced mobility, the poor sound proofing, as well as the sewage problem in line with the renovation plan that DG INLO is currently developing;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
Paragraph 89
89. Notes the purchase of the Treves II building approved by the Bureau on 18 October 2021, purchased with the intention of allowing the interconnectivity of Parliament’s central buildings in Brussels, and notes that it will be at the disposal of Parliament as from 1 January 2025; is concerned by the poor energy- performance of the building, of whichnotes that the energy performance certificate indicates an annual primary energy consumption equivalent to class E, and notes that the last renovation of the building dates back to 2000; calls on Parliament’s administration to make the necessary adaptations to the applicable energy efficiency regulations in order to improve the building’s energy- performance;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90
Paragraph 90
90. Notes the architectural competition on the design of the renewal of the Spaak building in which the competitors handed over their proposals in January 2021, the jury analysed the 15 entries and ranked the five laureates in February 2021 and the Bureau endorsed the five laureates proposed by the jury at its meeting of 6 July 2022; believes that the current economic context calls for renovation projects to be reconsidered in order to explore money-saving opportunities to bring safe working conditions to Members and Parliament’s staff without unreasonable budgetary implicationsnecessary steps must be taken to continue, given the deteriorating condition of the building and the end of the life-cycle of the building; recalls the former Secretary- General’s explanation that spare parts to maintain the building are not available on the market anymore;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. Takes note of the unanimous decision of the Bureau of 23 October 2019 to approve the creation of an IDEA Lab with the aim of testing new, innovative solutions in the context of offices and facility management; notes with concern that the decision of the Bureau was not based on any specific cost estimate and reminds the Bureau of the obligationwelcomes the announcement of the new Secretary- General that each proposal for a decision has towill again be accompanied by a financial statement of the estimated costs, and that expenditure should be accounted for transparently; welcomes the creation of a permanent laboratory for innovation together with the establishment of a separate budget line but considers that the costs need to remain reasonable and justifiable; notes that construction works needed to implement the innovative architectural concept, including the technical equipment and the installation costs, had an additional cost of 2 000 EUR/m2 to the “standard” renovation works; notes that to date the construc which will - however - benefit later renovations works needed to implement the architectural concept amount to EUR 663 265,55 while the IT equipment cost EUR 108 104 in case of a larger roll- out;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Points out that the IDEA Lab is supposed to be at the disposal of Members but regreand requests that Members have never been informed in this regardwill be informed in this regard about innovations and tested solutions that will be rolled-out in the future and those that are not pursued any further and for what reasons; questions the rationale behind the selection of the providers and of some of the technical innovations to be tested and regrets that some of the innovations would be too expensive to scale despite their interest; is of the opinion that one of the priorities of the IDEA Lab should be an innovative architectural solution to make better use of the space occupied by the unused showers in the Members’ offices; calls on the Bureau working group on buildings and Parliament’s administration to ensure a greater transparency regarding the budget for the IDEA Lab and to regularly present to the Committee on Budgetary Control the list of innovative solutions, their cost and the feedback produced, as well as the potential saving if implemented;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95
Paragraph 95
95. Notes that the East Wing of the Adenauer building in Luxembourg was completed in 2020 and the large-scale relocation of offices from the Schuman building startended in 20212; notes that works to build the West Wing started in 20210 and draws attention to the low occupancy rate of the buildingsthat the office space are almost all allocated to the parliament staff;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Recalls that the technical specifications of the concession contracts provide for the obligation to offer a solution to respond to food intolerances upon advance request; points out that such conditionality is completely unknown to the vast majority of clients and, in any case, clearly insufficient for the service provided in Parliament, where hundreds of workers go to canteens and cafeterias at peak hours; calls for more communication and direct information on this issue; reiterates its request that at least one fresh gluten-free meal option is available each day in Parliament’s canteens and cafeterias as well as options that take other dietary restrictions clearly into account;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106
Paragraph 106
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107
Paragraph 107
107. Recalls that efficient lighting solutions are an essential factor for the sustainability of buildings; welcomes the fact that the replacement of existing lighting with low-energy LED lights is evaluated whenever possible and feasible in Parliament’s buildings; regrets thatnotes that in Brussels, not all offices in Parliament’s three places of workbuildings are equipped with motion detectors and that it appears that the motion detectors in several offices in the Spinelli building do not work correctly; understands that the areas not equipped are limited and concern buildings rented or awaiting decision on their future use; welcomes the fact that, in Strasbourg, all offices are equipped with motion detectors, and that in Luxembourg, the new Adenauer building is equipped with automatic switch off based on the absence of movement; calls on Parliament to ensure that fully functioning motion detectors are installed in Brussels as soon as possible wherever feasible to reduce energy consumption; understands the need to reduce electricity consumption but calls for lighting saving measures to be compatible with staff welfare;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Understands that the core business of the service cars is the transport of Members, including the journey between Brussels and Strasbourg; points out, however, the waste of resources resulting from the fact that on average 15% of the seats available in the service fleet were been occupied for that journey in 2021; reiterates its call on Parliament’s administration to widen the user group while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. establishing a reserve list and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Understands that the core business of the service cars is the transport of Members, including the journey between Brussels and Strasbourg; points out, however, the waste of resources resulting fromwelcomes the fact that on average 185% of the seats available in the service fleet were been occupied for that journey in 2021; reiterates its call on Parliament’s administration to widen the user group while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. establishing a reserve list, and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey, giving regular updates on the numbers of seats available;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109
Paragraph 109
109. Welcomes the fact that the Brussels site has 138 parking spaces reserved for electric vehicles, each with a charging station, plus 12 units for Parliament’s delivery vans; notes that following the latest Environmental Permit, issued by the local authorities in April 2021 for the Spinelli building, a sprinkler system is necessary for this large underground car park equipped with charging stations and it will be installed in 2022, which will allow for the installation of 20 additional charging stations; calls on DG INLO to design and implement a schedule for charging stations to prevent single vehicles from blocking individual spots for long periods of time;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Calls on DG FINS to establish a clear methodology of responsibility, which is in line with rule of law standards, between members, paying agents, assistants, and service providers, that guarantees in case of errors or misuses related to payments or other financial transactions, that only the party which committed the error or misuse, will be held accountable and responsible; stresses that sanctions should be attributed only to the party that committed the error and is responsible for the misuse of funds;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Is concerned by inquiries into the work of local assistants by Parliament’s administration and the sometimes excessive requests for information, that means the request to proof work undertaken by the assistants and completion of over-detailed timesheets including questions on the content of confidential information; underlines that in order to ensure the efficient and timely collection of information related to such inquiries, requests should be sent during an appropriate time frame; recalls that controlling the work of local assistants by Parliament’s services must be in compliance with high data protection standards to respect the confidentiality of member’s work; is further concerned that personal data collected during audits of paying agents has been transmitted to offices of companies located outside of the European Union; recommends that all such data should be handled under the data protection rules of the Union; expects the administration to provide an overview of financial costs occurred by external auditors and controlling partners in this regard;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 a (new)
Subheading 25 a (new)
Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Notes, that the last revision of the Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors from 18 January 2021 does not reflect on possible force majeure circumstances when it comes to cancellations of visits; invites the Bureau to consider accepting national strike as a force majeure circumstance when cancelling an organised group visit, as it is often the case where national strike days are announced at a much later stage after tickets have been purchased and it is extremely onerous to cancel a group visit in the very last moment and be able to recover all the financial costs incurred whilst organising the visit;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 b (new)
Subheading 25 b (new)
JSIS
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Calls on the Bureau to ensure that the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; notes that the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person imposes certain difficulties on the applicants applying for reimbursement; calls on the Bureau to consider introducing the possibility for local doctors in charge of a treatment of an applicant to talk to the responsible JSIS unit or expert group to explain the treatment and medical benefits; further expresses its wish to improve the user- friendliness of the application enabling a quicker and more direct follow-up of individual requests; requests that the relevant bodies within JSIS duly and regularly take into account recent medical developments and knowledge gains when updating the list of eligible treatments and drugs;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 114
114. Recalls that in previous discharge resolutions Parliament requested a reform of the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA) to make the expenditure of this lump sum more transparent and accountable; noteswelcomes, that following the announcement atby the Bureau meeting of 7 MarchPresident on 4 April 2022 of, the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc wWorking gGroup on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the opereneral Expenditure Allowance (GEA) was established and tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; observes that the Bureau, at is meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendments to the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at inn the GEA on the basis of the experience gained during the ninth parliamentary term; highlights, that he ad-hoc Working Group was asked to take duly into account aspects of transparency, accountability and sound financial management of funds made available to Members, bearing in mind the principle of freedom and independence of the parliamentary mandate and the objective to avoid creasting transparency but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliaunnecessary administrative burdens for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; welcomes that on the basis of proposals submitted by the ad-hoc Working Group, the Bureau, at its meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendment’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutionsto the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116
Paragraph 116
116. Is concerned that the actuarial deficit of the Voluntary Pension Fund (VPF) on 31 December 2021 amounted to EUR 379 million (compared to EUR 371.3 million on 31 December 2020); is concerned that the complete exhaustion is expected by the end of 2024 or 2025 at the latest and that in the meantime the VPF continues to sell assets in order to meet its pension obligations, which probably means that the remaining capital is being reduced; notes that in its judgment of 15 September 2021 in cases T-720/19 to T-725/19, Ashworth and Others v Parliament3 , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concluded that already acquired rights were not impacted by the contested Bureau decision of 10 December 2018 and confirmed the Bureau's competence to adopt decisions aiming at improving the sustainability of the fund provided that they respect the principle of proportionality; notes that an appeal was lodged before the CJEU against its judgment of the 15 September 2021 and that Parliament’s Bureau will examine the implications for future proposals for options to improve the sustainability of the Fund while reducing Parliament`s liability; calls on the Bureau to actively follow-up on finding a feasible, legal and fair solution given the urgency of the matter; calls on the Bureau to help clarify the entitlements of members and former members, who receive several pensions due to positions in the EU institutions; highlights the case of former Commissioners and requests information if the voluntary pension fund payments can be disbursed in addition to entitlements stemming from their Commissioner pension rights and if candidates for Commissioner were obliged to disclose this information; asks Parliament to clarify if the mutual and partial deduction of pensions is possible; _________________ 3 Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021, Richard Ashworth and Others v European Parliament, T-720/19 to T-725/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:580