Activities of Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY related to 2011/2226(DEC)
Shadow reports (2)
SECOND REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 PDF (179 KB) DOC (94 KB)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010 PDF (208 KB) DOC (150 KB)
Amendments (8)
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Grants the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority's budget for the financial year 2010;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Finds it unacceptable that while the Management Board of the Authority consists of only 15 members, each meeting costs on average EUR 92 630, which represents an amount of EUR 6 175 per member; underlines that this amount is nearly three times higher than the second most expensive Management Board of a decentralised agency; is of the opinion that the Management Board meetings costs are excessive and should be reduced drastically; calls on the AuthoritWelcomes information received on the significant reductions in Management Board meeting costs, realised through switching to audio streaming on demand, using English as the only land its Management Board to remedy the situation immediately and to inform the discharge authority of the measures undertaken by 30 June 2012guage for Board meetings and to hold all meetings at the premises in Parma;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Urges the Court of Auditors to finalise and present its audit on conflict of interest in the Authority in order to provide Parliament with an objective assessment;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls onNotes that the Authority to address its weaknesses in recruitment procedures, which put at risk the transparency of the procedures; acknowledges, in particular, from the Court of Auditors that the Authority did not ensure, in December 2010, amended its recruitment guidelines in line with the best practice recommended by from the Court of Auditors regarding the anonymity of the written tests and decided pass marks for the various stages of the selection process after the evaluation process had already started;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned that the Authority delayed for over 12 months the Internal Audit Service (IAS)‘s ’very important' recommendation which called onNotes the actions taken by the Authority to define contract renewal processes and ensure the transparency of decision-making; calls, therefore, on the Authority to explain toinform the discharge authority on the reasons behind this delay and to rapidly addresfunctioning of the new Database on Procurements and Grants twhis deficiencych was released in June 2012;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers, therefore, that a thorough case-by-case analysis of these reports and of possible and actual conflicts of interest should be carried out in order to evaluate the objectivity and impartiality of the Authority at all levels and the work it carries out; calls, moreover, on the Authority to undertake a thorough screening of the declarations of interest submitted by its staff, experts and members of the Management Board, followed by concrete measures to end conflicts of interest and to provide information to the public; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the screening process and the concrete measures adopted, by means of a detailed written report by 30 Junewhile taking note of the new integrated policy of independence and new implementing rules the Authority adopted in 2011 and 2012;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Observes that the Authority is repeatedly challenged over alleged cases of conflicts of interest involving members of the experts' panels, especially in the case of the panels on ‘Food additives and nutrient sources added to food’ (ANS) and ‘Genetically modified organisms’ (GMO); underlines thatnotes the information given about recruitment to eight of the Authority's panels and its scientific committee which were due for renewal in March 2012, and that the Authority's capability of implementing the new policy is under scrutiny; calls therefore on the Authority to inform the discharge authority in writing by 30 June 2012takes note of the steps undertaken to implement the new policy on independence and scientific decision- making processes and stresses the importance to conform to the OECD definition of conflict of interest when renewing its panels and its scientific committee; at the same time, calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the new composition of the panels and of the scientific committee by 30 June 2012;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Acknowledges that six ‘very important’ recommendations from the IAS still need to be implemented and that three of them have already been delayed for over 12 months; notes in particular that these delays concerne steps taken by EFSA to address three outstanding recommendations from the IAS where delays occured: information security management, the contract renewal process and transparency of decision-making, and filing and archiving policy; calls, therefore, on the Authority to rapidly address these deficiencies, and to inform the discharge authorities of the results achieved;