13 Amendments of Angelika WERTHMANN related to 2012/2308(INI)
Amendment 5 #
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 geographic dispersion estimated at EUR 180 000 000between EUR 169 million and EUR 204 million;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
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;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
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);
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
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;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
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;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital C e (new)
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;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital C f (new)
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;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Recital C g (new)
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;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital C h (new)
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;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital C i (new)
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;
Amendment 32 #
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 place of work to be carried out without delay; 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 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Agrees with the principle that the European Parliament would be more effective, cost-efficient and respectful of the environment if it were located in a single place; and notes that the continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has become a symbolic negative issue amongst most EU citizens which is detrimental to Parliament’s reputation; also considers that, in view of the structural crisis that is raging on in the European Union and the budgetary position of both the EU itself and its Member States, European citizens can no longer be expected to tolerate a situation where a sum currently amounting to around EUR 200 million is being spent on this type of travelling;