2022/2082(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a decision 1
Recital C

C. whereas the Court of Auditors stated in its audit that, in its specific assessment of the administrative ~~and other~~ expenditure in 2021~~, it did not identify any serious weaknesses in~~ the annual activity reports of the institutions ~~and bodies it examined as required by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046~~did not show material levels of error, which is consistent with the Court’s findings;

Amendment 10 #

Mikuláš PEKSA, Markéta GREGOROVÁ, Marcel KOLAJA, Patrick BREYER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that the position of Parliament’s administration is that Article 175(1) and Article 163(1) of the Financial Regulation defining the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts only apply to direct management, while political groups manage the funds allocated to them according to the principles of indirect management in analogical application of Article 62(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation; welcomes, however, that Parliament accepted the Court’s recommendation to revise its guidelines on the application of the rules on public procurement by the political groups to better align them with the Financial Regulation; notes the commitment of Parliament’s administration to continue to support the political groups for the appropriations to be used in accordance with the applicable rules; calls on the Secretary General to report back to the Budgetary Control Committee when new guidelines on the application of the rules on public procurement by the political groups will be revised;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)

62a. Calls on the Parliament to actively encourage Members and Parliamentary staff not to hold any meetings or participate in lobby activities with organisations, which are not registered in the EU Transparency Register and do not publish annual accounts, as well as the legal persons financing its activities;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)

62a. Requests that all requests made in the Resolution of 15 December 2022 be implemented in the shortest time, including the reinforcement of the internal control and monitoring mechanisms; the setting up of an inquiry committee able to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions as well as the special committee to identify potential flaws in the Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and able to make proposals for reforms; the introduction of a cooling-off period for former MEPs in order to avoid possible revolving doors; the improvement to the readability of the Members’ legislative activities; the reinforcement of the Transparency Register which should be made truly mandatory, extended to include representatives of non-EU countries and to cover also former Members;

Amendment 102 #

Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 b (new)

62b. Welcomes that Parliament’s infrastructure to enable Members to publish scheduled meetings with interest representatives has been updated and is now linked to both the Transparency Register and the Legislative Observatory; stresses that this has allowed the Legislative Observatory to display all lobby meetings that have taken place in relation to a specific file in a user friendly way which greatly enhances lobby transparency; asks Parliamentary Services to create a separate login for Parliamentary assistants to draft entries in the system which members can subsequently review and validate; calls on Parliamentary Services to also create a user-friendly online repository to publish information on lobby meetings in open data format, with links to relevant information from the Transparency Register and the Legislative Observatory1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 b (new)

62b. Calls for a ban on friendship groups with third countries when an official Parliament delegation already exists; reminds that Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure must be respected in order to avoid any confusion with the official activities of the Parliament with third countries; recommends that Parliament allows on a case-by-case basis friendship groups for activities relating to certain sub-regions, or some local persecuted minorities for which an official delegation doesn't exist, on the basis of an official declaration, in an ad- hoc transparency register with the name of all the members affiliated, and with a mandatory declaration of meetings and stakeholders;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 b (new)

62b. Reiterates its concerns about potential conflicts of interests caused by side jobs of Members and requests to revise the Code of Conduct to take into consideration this particular concern;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 c (new)

62c. Recalls that according to Parliament’s Rules on Public Hearings adopted by the Bureau1a, interest representatives may only be invited as speakers at Parliament’s events, including Committee meetings, if they are registered in the Transparency Register; stresses that the Secretariat of the Committee or Parliament’s governing body organising a hearing is responsible to ensure compliance with this obligation; regrets that Committee hearings and other events have taken place in the past with interest representatives who were not registered in the Transparency Register; calls on the Committee Secretariats and relevant governing bodies to ensure strict compliance with this obligation in the future for all events organised in cooperation with Parliament’s administration; _________________ 1a Rules on Public Hearings, Bureau Decision of 18 June 2003;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 d (new)

62d. Notes that the quality of entries in the Transparency Register has improved over recent years and commends the role of the Joint Secretariat in that improvement, despite limited resources; regrets, however, that the overall quality of entries remains unsatisfactory with the Secretariat’s check of around 25% of entries over the course of 2021 finding that only 40% of checked entries provided satisfactory data quality, a number similar to 2020; stresses the need to allocate additional resources for the Secretariat to allow for scrutiny of the Transparency Register to ensure data quality; Calls for an expansion of its scope to include representatives of non-EU countries1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63

63. Notes that the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members investigated two cases of alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct in 2021, in one of which the President decided to impose a penalty in the form of a reprimand on the concerned Members in July 2021; notes that Parliament’s administration verified one case of a possible conflict of interest under the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members due to the recruitment of a family relative identified in 2021, which in turn eventually led to the initiation in 2022 of a recovery procedure of the misused parliamentary assistance expenditure;)

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63 a (new)

63a. Regrets that despite at least 25 breaches of the Code of Conduct by Members were recorded in the past eleven years, Parliament’s Presidents have not a single time imposed a financial sanction on a Member; calls on the President to consider imposing financial sanctions when it has been proven that Members have breached the Code of Conduct to ensure the sanctions actually have a deterrent effect;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64

64. Notes that in 2021 the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigated 18 cases and the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) investigated 3 cases involving Parliament on issues related to Members’ financial and social entitlements, the financing of political structures; notes that, out of 18 OLAF investigations, 4 led to a report with financial recommendations, 1 led to a final report with disciplinary recommendations, 5 led to a decision to dismiss the case, and 8 are still ongoing in 2022; notes also that OLAF investigated 5 cases involving Parliament’s staff, out of which 2 were closed in 2021 without any recommendation and 3 were not concluded; notes that none of the EPPO investigations were concluded in 2021; asks the administration whether the recommendations made by OLAF have been fully implemented and the amounts at risk have been recovered (particularly the EUR 1 837 000 found to be paid irregularly), as well as to provide a summary, without any sensitive data, of the typology of cases investigated in order to be able to draw conclusions and make improvements;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Observes that the position of Parliament’s administration is that Article 175(1) and Article 163(1) of the Financial Regulation defining the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts only apply to direct management, while political groups manage the funds allocated to them according to the principles of indirect management in analogical application of Article 62(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation; welcomes, however, that Parliament accepted the Court’s recommendation to revise its guidelines on the application of the rules on public procurement by the political groups to better align them with the Financial Regulation; and asks that Parliament takes into account the technical specificity of some procurement procedures for which only limited number of tenders with high expertise is able to reply; notes the commitment of Parliament’s administration to continue to support the political groups for the appropriations to be used in accordance with the applicable rules;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64 a (new)

64a. Is deeply concerned by the fact that the EU’s anti-fraud office OLAF has currently under no circumstances access to Member’s offices, computers and email accounts, even when investigating cases linked to Members based on a substantiated suspicion; stresses that it is of utmost importance to have an adequate procedure for granting access to OLAF in place in cases of substantiated suspicions against individual Members; calls on the Bureau to set up such a procedure without delay;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65

65. Notes the ongoing project to make plenary voting records available in a dedicated space where users will have access to clear and reader-friendly documents and believes that Parliament should go further and create a coherent website combining the whole multitude of interconnected websites related to the legislative work, i.e. Legislative Observatory, Members' profiles, the plenary website, etc. for the sake of transparency and public scrutiny; calls on Parliament’s services to also make available all amendments and roll-call voting records at committee level and to include them in the new layout1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 112 #

Mikuláš PEKSA, Markéta GREGOROVÁ, Patrick BREYER, Marcel KOLAJA, Daniel FREUND, Lara WOLTERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65 a (new)

65a. Considers roll call votes (RCV) to be a key instrument for transparency and accountability towards the Union’s citizens; calls for introducing automatic RCV to any final vote except for secret ballots, and for increasing the number of RCV that are possible for a political group to ask for per part-session in Rule 190-2, or exempting legislative files from that limitation;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65 b (new)

65b. Recalls that Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure obliges Rapporteurs, Shadows and Committee Chairs to publish their meetings with interest representatives; calls on the AFCO Committee to revise the Rules of Procedure to extend this obligation to all Members working on Reports, Opinions or Resolutions; notes with great concern that as of 26 January 2023, 261 current Members have not published a single meeting with an interest representative on Parliament’s website; recalls that information and reminder notices on the obligation to publish meetings should be sent to all Members at regular intervals1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 114 #

65c. Reiterates that Article 4 of the Code of Conduct provides, with respect to financial interests and conflicts of interest, that the Members’ declarations of financial interests shall be provided in a detailed manner; regrets that according to a Transparency International EU study1a, around 15% of Members with additional incomes had included only vague or generic job descriptions in their declarations at the end of 2021; stresses that in such cases it is questionable whether the activity can be checked for any potential conflict of interest with parliamentary activity; further regrets that Parliament’s services are instructed to only carry out general plausibility checks; repeats its call on the Bureau to review the format of the declarations to require more detail, including more detail on the declaration of the Member’s assets; asks the President to instruct the services to systematically carry out thorough checks of the declarations to ensure that the information provided therein is sufficiently detailed to allow for an assessment of any potential conflict of interest; _________________ 1a https://transparency.eu/burning-candle- mep-income/

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65 d (new)

65d. Notes that out of the 459 Members of the 8th parliamentary term, who were not re-elected in 2019, only one notification of post-mandate employment was submitted to Parliament (Article 6 of the Code of Conduct); urges Parliament to introduce a "cooling-off" period for former Members equal to the time Members receive a transitional allowance; notes that in 2021, out of the 203 officials who left service, 54 requested permission for an activity after leaving the service (Article 16 of the Staff Regulations); calls on Parliament to establish stronger rules to regulate revolving doors for Members and civil servants and to strictly ensure that former Members may not use their former Member badges for covert lobbying1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66 a (new)

66a. Calls on the Bureau to revise the Code of Conduct by including restrictions on Members to hire not only direct, but also indirect family members;

Amendment 117 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67

67. ~~Regret~~Notes that six harassment cases against Members were opened in 2021 and that four cases were pending from 2020; notes that no harassment was found in the four cases closed in 2021; ~~regret~~notes that in 2021 there was one new harassment complaint coming from a member of staff and notes that there was one ongoing case and three cases closed; regrets that the investigation of some harassment cases extended over more than a year causing unnecessary harm to Members, staff and assistants; reminds Parliament’s administration that it has a legal responsibility to investigate cases brought before it with due rigour, speed and discretion; calls on the Bureau to prescribe time limits for the handling of harassment complaints;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68

68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; ~~is concerned~~observes, 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 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68

68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concerned, 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, as well as staff, including persons in managerial roles in the different directorates-general and political groups; 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;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
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 the building proposed by the 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 accepted;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68

68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concerned, 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 resolution; which should also include the provision of information to both parties on their rights;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~on the Bureau to review~~ing~~ the composition of both advisory committees ~~and~~in order to include the pertinent independent expertise and to stipulat~~ing~~e mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their ~~members~~internal members; strongly recommends a complete review of the functioning of the advisory committees with the assistance of independent legal and harassment prevention specialists, so that Parliament is equipped with clear, effective and robust rules of procedure while focusing on adequate response times and the necessary procedural safeguards, information, counselling and protection measures for all parties as appropriate;

Amendment 122 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

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; recalls that the Chair of the latter Committee has the competence to convene meetings and his or her vote will be the casting vote in case of a tie; is concerned that the fact that the Chair of this Committee is a Member of Parliament leads to conflicts of interests if the Member under investigation is from the same political group as the Chair; 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 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70

70. Notes that there was one case of whistleblowing in 2021 and that the whistle-blower had contacted OLAF before addressing the contact point; calls on the Secretary General to clarify contradictory data provided on the number of whistleblower cases reported in 2021 and 2022 respectively; is deeply concerned that there seems to have been no formal referral to OLAF by Parliament in this case and reminds the Administration of their duty to immediately report alleged cases of fraud to OLAF; notes that Parliament’s administration received a number of anonymous allegations of fraud and misconduct that were all followed up either internally or by OLAF, and calls on Parliament’s administration for a summary of the nature of the eventual cases opened and the measures taken by the administration;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71

71. RIs deeply concerned by the fact that a poll among Parliament’s staff by the European Court of Auditors from 2019 found that almost 80% of respondents have little or no knowledge about ways to report unethical behaviour1a; recalls that Parliament has a whistleblower contact point within the cabinet of the Secretary-General to which irregularities can be reported and who provides advice and facilitates the application of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the relevant implementing provisions; calls on the ~~Bureau to require relevant background checks and training for whistleblower contact points;~~ administration to urgently launch an awareness campaign on the existence of this contact point; calls on the Bureau to require relevant background checks and training for whistleblower contact points; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR19_13/SR_ethical_frameworks _EN.pdf, page 35

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position ~~in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation~~to report fraud and request whistleblower protection due to their particular employment situation; recalls that the one case of whistleblowing in 2021 was the first case of whistleblowing since 2016 when all concerned APAs who blew a whistle subsequently lost their job; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modify the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align them to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 1a, as well as to provide whistleblower APAs with a ~~similar~~ protection toat least up to the standard of that of victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning anonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliation; and assistance to take legal action for damages suffered; stresses that the reform should also include extending the mandate of the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ to complaints from whistleblowers and altering the composition of the Committee in a way that ensures that a sufficient number of independent experts on whistleblowing will also sit on the panel; Calls on mandatory whistleblowing training for MEPs and for any superior, both within the administration and political groups, that would receive potential whistleblowing reports2a; _________________ 21a Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17). ; 2a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modify the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align them to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , as well as to provide whistleblower APAs and staff with a similar protection to that of victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning anonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliation; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modify the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align them to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 1a, as well as to provide whistleblower APAs with a similar protection to that of victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation ~~and~~, protectionve measures concerning anonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliation; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).and all other appropriate protection measures;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their ~~particular~~specific employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to modify the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 to align them to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , as well as to provide whistleblower APAs with ~~a similar~~reinforced protection ~~to that of~~, in the same line as for victims of harassment, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning anonymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliation; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
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 the~~allows, 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 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Reiterates that APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position in whistleblowing cases due to their particular employment situation; therefore calls on the Secretary-General to ~~modify~~fully adapt the internal rules on whistleblowing adopted on 4 December 2015 ~~to align them~~and contained in the Staff Regulations to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , ~~as well as to provide~~including by setting up secure channels for reporting; further notes that whistleblower APAs ~~with a simila~~deserve proper protection similar to that of victims of harassment~~, in particular with regard to provisional measures during the administrative investigation and protection measures concerning~~; requests Parliament to raise awareness, where possible, anmon~~ymity, pay until the end of the contract, transfer of post and protection from retaliation~~g parliamentary staff on their whistleblower protections; _________________ 2 Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

Amendment 131 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73

73. Highlights the importance of its communication strategy to engage with Union citizens through a varied multichannel series of projects and activities despite the challenges encountered in 2021; notes in Parliament social media channels an average growth in engagement rate between 2020 and 2021 of 69% and an average growth in the number of followers in 2021 of 11%; notes that, following a President decision in June 2021, visitors’ facilities were partially reopened and were able to welcome a total of 337 984 visitors until the end of the year and budgetary commitments of EUR 15 982 020 for 2021; notes that the works of the Zweig Visitor Centre continued as planned in 2021 and it was inaugurated in November 2022, and in this respect asks that consideration be given to the amount of time visitors' groups invest in moving from the Zweig building to the Spaak building, including security and identification checks, which may reduce the number of groups that can be received on a daily basis; notes that the House of European History, the Parlamentarium and the Europa Experiences remained closed or operated at reduced capacity for parts of 2021; welcomes the fact that the European Youth Event could finally be held in 2021 in a hybrid format and that it was a success with 10 000 young people taking part, although regrets a certain lack of preparation for the security checks which delayed access to Parliament's premises; notes the first editions of the LUX Audience award, with 6 000 voters, and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Prize for journalism, which drew over 200 applications from across the Union;

Amendment 132 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74 a (new)

74a. Underlines that the workload in the EPLOs seems to have dramatically increased taking on new permanent tasks, and calls for the Parliament to ensure EPLOs have sufficient human, technical, financial resources to fulfil their missions;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
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 2022~~which 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 134 #

Mikuláš PEKSA, Patrick BREYER, Markéta GREGOROVÁ, Marcel KOLAJA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)

75a. Highlights the Parliament’s dependence for communications on social media on platforms with main establishment outside the EU, with poor track records with regards to data protection, privacy, freedom of information and freedom of expression; recalls in particular the 2018 Facebook- Cambridge Analytica scandal, the YouTube recommendation algorithm promoting extremist content, and the 2022 Twitter scandal regarding the suspension of journalists and the swift and opaque changes of verification policies; calls the Parliament to champion and support alternative social media, which are more in line with the European values, such as open-source, decentralised and interoperable networks;

Amendment 135 #

Joachim KUHS, Jean-François JALKH, Matteo ADINOLFI, Charlie WEIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)

75a. Reminds that in 2021 budget of the DG COMM amounted to 6%1a of the total budget of the European Parliament or at least 123.8 million EUR; points out that DG COMM disposed of 610 staffers in 2021; _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about- parliament/en/organisation-and- rules/parliaments-budget

Amendment 136 #

Joachim KUHS, Jean-François JALKH, Matteo ADINOLFI, Charlie WEIMERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 b (new)

75b. Points out that DG COMM has allocated 4 830 000 EUR for tenders2a on monitoring and analysis of Dutch, Romanian, Slovenian, Latvian, Maltese, Swedish, Cypus, Austrian, Luxembourg, German, French, Danish, Lithuaninan, Estonian, Spanish media in 2021; _________________ 2a https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft- search.html?_caList=1&_procedureType Forthcoming=1&_procedureTypeOngoin g=1&caList=55&closingDateFrom=&clos ingDateTo=&confirm=Search≺ocedureT ypeForthcoming=≺ocedureTypeOngoing =☆tDateFrom=01/01/2021☆tDateTo=31/ 12/2021&status=&text=&maxResults=50

Amendment 137 #

Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~regrets~~notes that the vast majority of Europa Experience facilities will be open to the public in 2024, regrets however that the goal to establish facilities in all Union capitals will not be reached before the 2024 Parliament elections but understands the dependence of this project on the prospects in a rapidly changing real estate market;

Amendment 138 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~regret~~notes that the ~~goal to establish facilities in all Union capitals will not be reached before the 2024 Parliament elections~~majority 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

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 14 #

Younous OMARJEE, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
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 the building proposed by the other tenderer; notes with concern 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 accepted; stresses the importance in guaranteeing a level playing field to all tenderers and a potential reputational risk the Parliament could suffer in case of any procurement related irregularities;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78

78. Recalls that the Union, and therefore Parliament too, is legally committed to providing accessible information and communication under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; calls therefore on Parliament’s administration to develop specific initiatives to ensure more and better accessibility to its documents and debates, with a particular focus on the State of the Union debate as well as the "This is Europe" plenary debates, building on examples like the interpretation in International Sign of the Commission’s weekly college read outs; reiterates its long-standing request to the Secretary- General to analyse the feasibility of international sign language interpretation for all plenary debates and to implement without delay this request; believes moreover that plenary sessions retransmission in the sign languages used in each Member State would increase participation of persons with disabilities in the EU democratic process; notes that Directorate-General for Translation is developing a tool that is able to automatically transcribe and translate parliamentary multilingual debates in real time, so that all citizens have equal access to information in their language; requests an update on the project and an analysis on its implementation and total cost;

Amendment 141 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79

79. Notes that the presence of Parliament’s officials in Union delegations or other bodies aims to strengthen inter- parliamentary relations with regional organisation; reiterates, however, the concern regarding the Bureau decision of 11 February 2019 regarding parliamentary support to the European Union Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta, the Delegation of the European Union to the African Union in Addis Ababa and the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations in New York; notes that no staff were deployed in 2020, while two officials were seconded to New York and one to Addis Ababa in 2022; reminds Parliament’s administration of its commitment to establish measurable indicators to assess their annual performance and not to waste resources undermining the reputation of the Parliament; draws attention to the fact that Parliament’s administration has set up a unit in charge of relations with ASEAN and has proposed most of its staff to be deployed in Jakarta, while for the other two destinations the administration has simply selected senior members of staff; reiterates its call for transparent appointment processes of the staff involved and for the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control to be kept informed;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
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 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80

80. ~~Notes~~Is concerned by the fact that eight Members decided, on their own initiative, to observe elections in third countries, namely Kazachstan and Ecuador, 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;

Amendment 144 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80

80. ~~Note~~Regrets 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;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81

81. Questions the Bureau decision of 4 July 2022 to create a Directorate-General for Parliamentary Democracy Partnerships (DG PAPA) in view of the fact that its future responsibilities are already carried out by other services and that it will require additional administrative staff; is of the opinion that the regrouping of services in DG PAPA is, however, a unique opportunity for a thorough evaluation of the need, efficiency and cost of the activities carried out, as well as of their visibility and engagement vis-à-vis the Members;deleted

Amendment 146 #

Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Joachim Stanisław BRUDZIŃSKI, Elżbieta RAFALSKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82

82. Welcomes the fact that the Digital Signature Portal (DiSP) allows Members to digitally sign documents, which improves efficiency, traceability and transparency to the procedures, and regrets that, in contrast to DiSP, signing plenary amendments is still an outdated and burdensome procedure of signing them by hand and sending them in scanned form; calls on the Bureau to take the necessary steps for introducing the possibility for Members to sign plenary amendments digitally in the future;

Amendment 147 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84

84. Notes that, in 2021, the overall cost of technical solutions to allow remote voting sessions amounted to EUR 1 275 500, including an extension of the plenary applications (EUR 120 000), the development of the EPvote application (EUR 233 500), IT support to Members (EUR 529 200), to deploy the eVoting system (EUR 250 000) and ad-hoc services to allow Members’ participation from EPLOs (EUR 142 800); ~~points out~~takes note of the importance of all of the IT systems that ensure proper remote functioning of the Parliament, points out, however, that all innovations implemented will require an investment for their maintenance in view of future uses;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses how important it is to have digital systems that can cope with the remote and office activities of MEPs and staff; notes that the connection quality in older buildings (such as SDM in Strasbourg) does not always guarantee basic activities; also calls for parliamentary devices to give access to the now essential virtual meeting applications;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
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 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85

85. Highlights Parliament’s investment in strengthening its cybersecurity, which includes the creation of a dedicated Directorate in DG ITEC and a significant increase of the related resources aiming to increase the protection of Parliament’s information systems in the face of growing threats and ransomware attacks; welcomes the expansion of the range of digital services provided via the e-Portal leading to an increase of 67% in the number of transactions, which is a significant increase compared to 2020, and to the achievement of 85% use rate of the e-Portal by Members for their travel and subsistence expenses; praises the specific measures undertaken to facilitate administrative procedures and the intended efforts towards less bureaucracy when it comes to the services for Members including the greater digitalisation of the e-Portal and improved intuitive consultation function for travel and subsistence expenses;

Amendment 151 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85

85. ~~Highlight~~Welcomes Parliament’s investment in strengthening its cybersecurity, which includes the creation of a dedicated Directorate in DG ITEC and a significant increase of the related resources aiming to increase the protection of Parliament’s information systems in the face of constantly growing threats and ransomware attacks; urges the Parliament to maintain its efforts and increase its investments in cybersecurity as long as the infrastructures remain vulnerable to cyber-attacks; underlines the need to ensure the recruitment and retention of enough highly-qualified staff in this very strategic sector; welcomes the expansion of the range of digital services provided via the e-Portal leading to an increase of 67% in the number of transactions, which is a significant increase compared to 2020, and to the achievement of 85% use rate of the e-Portal by Members for their travel and subsistence expenses;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86

86. Notes that DG SAFE’s reorganisation has foreseen the creation of the new Directorate on Security Technology and Information aiming to ensure protection of all categories of information handled by Parliament; is concerned that the specific unit responsible for Security Engineering has been created but that the head of unit position does not appear as such in Parliament’s organisation chart; calls on the Secretary-General to remedy this situation promptly in order to provide the new key Directorate with the necessary resources to fulfil its responsibilities; suggests to offer regularly updated cybersecurity-related training programmes for all staff within the Parliament;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86

86. Notes that DG SAFE’s reorganisation has foreseen the creation of the new Directorate on Security Technology and Information aiming to ensure protection of all categories of information handled by Parliament; ~~is concerned~~observes that the specific unit responsible for Security Engineering has been created but that the head of unit position does not appear as such in Parliament’s organisation chart; calls on the Secretary-General to remedy this situation promptly in order to provide the new key Directorate with the necessary resources to fulfil its responsibilities;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86 a (new)

86a. Deplores the fact that there is no system in place to ensure that Members who are temporarily absent for a justified reason, such as maternity leave, parental leave, long-term sick leave or carer’s leave, can continue to carry out their core duties if they so wish, first and foremost to speak in debates and to vote; deems this problematic as it can negatively impact citizens’ representation in Parliament; underlines that younger, particularly female, Members and their voters are disproportionately affected when no such arrangements are provided for; emphasizes that a vote for a female member of Parliament should not lead to a lack of representation; calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to provide for the continuation of remote participation and for providing for the substitution of a Member - whether female or male - while on parental leave and in the above mentioned cases by revising Parliament’s Rules of Procedure; equally emphasises the importance of amending the European Electoral Law so as to make such substitution possible;

Amendment 155 #

86a. Notes that Parliament’s Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) is frequently not reachable at peak login hours in the morning; calls on the services to ensure that that the VDI has sufficient capacity to allow for a swift login even at peak hours;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86 a (new)

86a. Takes note of the changes in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on 20 December 2020 allowing for remote voting; regrets that voting remotely in committee is currently not provided for under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure unless the President establishes the existence of extraordinary circumstances; reiterates its request, adopted at Plenary level on several occasions, to the Bureau to launch a revision of the Rules of Procedure in order to enable Members to exercise their right to vote remotely while benefiting from maternity or paternity leave, during a long term illness or in cases of force majeure, thus capitalising on the great effort and financial investment that the Parliament has made in technical solutions to allow remote voting;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
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, 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 and on the huge cost of the building strategy on European taxpayers; 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 158 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
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

88. ~~Expresses concerns about structural problems in the Treves I building; u~~Underlines 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 16 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
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 which 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 administr~~Bureau to approve the necessary renovations to ~~make the necessary adaptations to the applicable energy efficiency regulations in order to improve the building’s energy- performance~~improve the energy- performance of the building in line with applicable energy efficiency regulations before the building is put to the use by the Parliament;

Amendment 161 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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 which~~notes 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 162 #

Motion for a resolution
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 implications; also calls in this light for proper information and consultation to the relevant Parliament committees on next actions in the renovation plans, as well as where the purchase of new buildings is concerned, particularly regarding possible plans to acquire the Osmose building;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
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 164 #

Joachim KUHS, Jean-François JALKH, Matteo ADINOLFI, Charlie WEIMERS

Motion for a resolution
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 renovate the building, given its deteriorating condition, in order to ensure the security and well-being of staff ; keeping in mind that the budgetary implications should remain reasonable;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90 a (new)

90a. Finds scandalous the publication of tender 2019/S 210-512181 "Belgium- Brussels: Design competition pertaining to the renewal of the Paul-Henri SPAAK building in Brussels "3a without an indication of the estimated total value of the final constructions; calls on Buro to disclose the figures as soon as possible; _________________ 3a https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTI CE:512181-2019:TEXT:EN:HTML

Amendment 166 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
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 obligation~~welcomes the announcement of the new Secretary- General that each proposal for a decision ~~has to~~will 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 work~~s 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 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92

92. Points out that the IDEA Lab is supposed to be at the disposal of Members ~~but regre~~and requests that Members ~~have never been informed in this regard~~will 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 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93

93. Notes that in 2021 the total number of reported thefts in Members’ offices and staff offices was 83, a 58,2% decrease compared to 2020, with a total value of stolen items of EUR 190 791.,99; welcomes the fact that Parliament’s responsible services identified the perpetrator of two important thefts, one related to 101 hybrid computers and 26 iPads and the other related to 15 hybrid computers, and that the case is pending in the Belgian judicial proceedings and calls that attention is not lowered on a phenomenon that has tainted the institution of parliament;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
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 started in 2021; notes that works to build the West Wing started in 2021 and ~~draws attention to the~~expresses its deep concern over the fact that the Parliament’s biggest and most expensive investment in buildings in recent years today stands under-used due to a very low occupancy rate of the buildings;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Notes that the 2021 follow-up process resulted in the closure of 47 of the 99 open actions and for which the agreed due dates for implementation had expired; ~~regrets~~stresses the fact that some of the 52 remaining actions were recommended several years ago but remain unimplemented and highlights that 23 of them address significant risk; expects the different directorates-general to ensure that the remaining actions are closed without any further delay and that the agreed actions will be implemented in accordance with the due dates set in the internal auditor’s annual report; calls on the Secretary- General to report to the discharge authority ~~on the closure~~twice per year on the status of the remaining actions;

Amendment 170 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~start~~ended in 20212; notes that works to build the West Wing started in 20210 and ~~draws attention to the low occupancy rate of the buildings~~that the office space are almost all allocated to the parliament staff;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96

96. Notes with concern the Secretary- General’s decision of 22 March 2021 to abolish the Supervisory Committee for Canteens, Cafeterias and the Staff Shop (CORECA) based on the fact that since October 2020 all activities in the sector on Parliament’s premises have operated under concession contracts, which function without any direct involvement from Parliament’s budget; believes, however, that CORECA was a useful contact point between Parliament’s competent services and the Staff Committee on the food offer and the catering services, and that it would have been useful, for instance, to involve and receive feedback from the staff about the recent adaptation of the food offer in several venues and its noticeable deterioration in quality; regrets also that the Astrid Lulling Lounge no longer serves hot meals and has reduced its offer; calls, therefore, on the Secretary-General to reinstate CORECA or a similar contact point to involve staff representatives;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
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 173 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~; calls for more communication on this issue; calls for clearer food and allergen specifications on meals proposed in canteens and cafeterias ~~at peak hours~~; reiterates its request that at least one fresh gluten-free meal option is available each day in Parliament’s canteens and cafeterias;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97 a (new)

97a. Notes that Parliament’s canteen on the -1 floor of the SPINELLI building is frequently overcrowded at peak hours, resulting in long queues and waiting times; calls on the Bureau to reflect on imposing access restrictions to the canteens in Parliament’s main buildings for external visitors and visitor groups to ensure that Members and staff with limited time for a lunch break still have the possibility to make use of the canteen during peak hours;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98

98. Notes the preparation throughout 2021 of the internalisation of general security services in Luxembourg with the organisation and follow-up of all recruitment procedures and an induction training for 115 agents; notes that the internalisation entered into force on 1 January 2022; is concerned that offering posts in function group I and the associated salary makes it difficult to attract and recruit specialised staff from all Member States in the security field; reiterates that is particularly concerned about the situation in Luxembourg~~, where this wage is lower than the minimum inter-professional wage, forcing Parliament to resort to social compensation, which is neither sustainable nor appropriate for a Union institution~~; reiterates, therefore, that Parliament should convey to the Commission the extreme urgency of creating a correction coefficient for Luxembourg;

Amendment 176 #

Gilles BOYER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100

100. Observes that the evacuation system in Parliament’s buildings is largely based on security volunteers, as well as the difficulties to recruit them in buildings with less presence of administrative staff and taking into account that volunteers can also be on a teleworking mode; stresses the importance of counting on trained volunteers capable of guiding and supporting people present in Parliament’s building during evacuation simulations and real emergencies;

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100

100. ~~Observe~~Regrets that the evacuation system in Parliament’s buildings is largely based on security volunteers, a~~s well a~~nd underlines the difficulties to recruit them in buildings with less presence of administrative staff; stresses the importance of not counting only on trained volunteers capable of guiding and supporting people present in Parliament’s building during evacuation simulations and real emergencies;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100 a (new)

100a. Calls on the security services controlling access to Parliament’s buildings to find a reasonable solution for external photographers who works in Parliament's premises on a daily basis and who have to carry a large amount of professional equipment through the security control every time, for example by allowing them to use the specific access for press;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100 b (new)

100b. Points out that at weekends the access to Parliament's buildings requires attendance to be signed on a paper register and, based on past problems with this method, strongly recommends that a more reliable and effective system be put in place;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Acknowledges that, in accordance with Article 118(9) of the Financial Regulation, “the reports and findings of the internal auditor, as well as the report of the Union institution concerned, shall be accessible to the public after validation by the internal auditor of the action taken for their implementation”; notes that in practice the reports and findings are only published once all recommendations have been implemented; regrets that this results in a de facto delay of publication for several years; also regrets that Members may only read them in the secure reading room for as long as recommended measures have not been implemented; calls on the Bureau to allow Members to have immediate and full access to the internal audit reports; further calls on the Bureau to make each internal audit report available to the public one year after its finalisation, once the internal auditor has validated the actions taken to implement the previous year’s recommendations; recalls that a validation of recommendations does not require all recommendations to be fully implemented; calls on the internal auditor to regularly report to the Committee on Budgetary Control on the annual audit activities carried out;

Amendment 180 #

Ryszard CZARNECKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102

102. Notes with satisfaction that emissions in 2021 are lower than in 2019, with 2 501 tonnes of CO2; welcomes the fact that several practices developed or expanded in 2020 and 2021 to ensure business continuity and proved beneficial for Parliament’s environmental performance are likely to be maintained in the future, in particular measures related to digitalisation and teleworking, that helped to reduce the paper consumption (11.8 Kg/FTE in 2021 compared to 28.1 kg/FTE in 2019), the transport of documentation between the three places of work (49 tonnes of CO2 compared to 72 tonnes in 2019) and the CO2 emissions caused by commuting and travelling; further encourages the installation of solar panels on all buildings in order to increase the institution's carbon efficiency;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103

103. Recalls that transport of persons accounts for roughly two-thirds of Parliament’s carbon footprint; notes that the CO2 emissions from the monthly commutes to Strasbourg in 2021 were approximately 490 tonnes of CO2 including travel of staff and APAs, and transport of documents and equipment; also notes that the suspension of Strasbourg part-sessions contributed to total savings of EUR 26 260 608 according to Parliament’s Secretariat, while also significantly reducing Parliament’s carbon footprint; highlights that the Court estimates that “the end of moving from Strasbourg to Brussels could generate annual savings of EUR 114 million plus a one-off saving of EUR 616 million if the Strasbourg buildings are successfully divested, or a one-off cost of EUR 40 million if they are not"1a; considers that given the current climate crisis, retaining the Strasbourg seat is untenable, calls on the Council to take Parliament’s position into account and act on it as a matter of urgency; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/PL1407_LETTER/PL1407_LETT ER_EN.pdf

Amendment 182 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105 a (new)

105a. Welcomes the installation of photovoltaic solar panels on the SPINELLI, Montoyer 70, BRANDT and ANTALL buildings in Brussels which was planned to be finalised by January 2023; further welcomes the decision to launch a new study on on-site electricity production in Strasbourg in order to update the data and calculations and explore new solutions, also through photovoltaic panels; expects the Bureau to decide to install as many photovoltaic panels as feasible and useful based on the results of the study; stresses that Parliament could share this energy with the city of Strasbourg when Parliament’s premises are mostly empty; calls on the Bureau to also consider renting the roofs’ surfaces to external users for the installation of solar panels and thereby use it as an additional source of income for Parliament;

Amendment 184 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106

106. Acknowledges that, following the example of measures taken in many Member States and in other Union institutions, the proposal to turn off the heating system and let the building drift to a minimal temperature as of Thursday evening to Monday morning and over the holiday periods would result in significant savings estimated at over EUR 2.5 million in total; however, calls on Parliament to guarantee an adequate temperature in the Parliament’s buildings from Mondays to Fridays as regular working days; understands the need to reduce energy consumption but calls for heating saving measures to be compatible with staff welfare;deleted

Amendment 185 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 106

106. Acknowledges that, following the example of measures taken in many Member States and in other Union institutions, the ~~proposal~~decision taken by the Bureau to turn off the heating system and let the building drift to a minimal temperature as of Thursday evening to Monday morning and over the holiday periods would result in significant savings estimated at over EUR 2.5 million in total; however, ~~calls on Parliament~~notes the measures taken by the Bureau to guarantee an adequate temperature in the Parliament’s buildings from Mondays to Fridays as regular working days; understands the need to reduce energy consumption ~~but calls for~~and reminds that heating saving measures ~~to be~~need to remain compatible with staff welfare;

Amendment 186 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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 that~~notes that in Brussels, not all offices in Parliament’s ~~three places of work~~buildings 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

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 188 #

Motion for a resolution
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 and allowing Parliament’s staff to travel to and from Strasbourg with the service fleet without the presence of a Member, while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. establishing a reserve list and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
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 not 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 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Acknowledges that, in accordance with Article 118(9) of the Financial Regulation, “the reports and findings of the internal auditor, as well as the report of the Union institution concerned, shall be accessible to the public after validation by the internal auditor of the action taken for their implementation” which in practice is translated into a delay in publication of several years after all recommendations have been implemented; calls on the Bureau to make sure that Members have access to the internal report at least in view of the discharge procedure; requests a publication of the report in a more expedite way reminding that a validation of recommendations does not require all recommendations to be fully implemented; calls on the internal auditor to regularly report to the Committee on Budgetary Control on the annual audit activities carried out;

Amendment 190 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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~~welcomes 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

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 192 #

Motion for a resolution
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; encourages Parliament to continue with an ambitious expansion of the electrical charging infrastructure for all types of vehicles;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 110 a (new)

110a. Welcomes the possibility for staff to rent standard and electric bikes during the part-time sessions in Strasbourg; regrets that the bikes are in practice fully booked out more than a week in advance; calls on Parliament to examine the possibility for offering more rental bikes in Strasbourg to meet the demand by Members and staff and contribute to enhancing sustainable mobility;

Amendment 194 #

Ryszard CZARNECKI, Ryszard Antoni LEGUTKO, Elżbieta RAFALSKA

Motion for a resolution
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 195 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)

111a. Is deeply concerned about growing delays in reimbursement of travel expenses for Members, which substantially affect their work; acknowledges that DG FINS should be adequately staffed to properly, timely, and without bias perform their duties;

Amendment 196 #

111a. Calls for an end to the use of external companies that are, according to Yale University's ranking1a, continuing to operate in Russia; _________________ 1a https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over- 1000-companies-have-curtailed- operations-russia-some-remain

Amendment 197 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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)

Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors

Amendment 199 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body;

Amendment 20 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 b (new)

JSIS

Amendment 201 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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 202 #

Mikuláš PEKSA, Markéta GREGOROVÁ, Marcel KOLAJA, Patrick BREYER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112 a (new)

112a. Recalls that in 2019 the Parliament launched a project to automate the registration of attendance with biometric technology in the central attendance register and signed a contract for this project at the end of 2020; stresses that the large-scale processing of biometric data should be avoided; again asks the Bureau to develop an alternative solution that does not involve the processing of biometric data and ensures that only Members entitled to the daily subsistence allowance actually receive it; regrets that this project is still being pursued despite the European Data Protection Supervisor’s adverse opinion at the end of March 2021 and reiterated in its Annual Report 2021, where it was stated that Parliament should consider less intrusive alternatives with regard to data protection;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113

113. ~~Suggest~~Welcomes the creation of a Bureau ad-hoc Working Group to carry out a thorough overhaul of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics~~; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before th~~, following the announcement by the President on 21 November 2022; highlights, that the WG would be tasked to evaluate eand ~~of the current mandate to provide this Working Group with first-hand inform~~review the IMMS in order to adapt the provisions to the recent legislative developments, new practices of Members and the recommendations from ~~experienced Members on the practical applic~~the Internal Auditor while ensuring consistency and legal certainty; highlights, that in its deliberation ofs, the ~~rules governing Parliame~~ad-hoc Working Group shall take duly into a~~nd the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the fact that the Members’ att~~ccount transparency, accountability, simplification and sound financial management of funds made available to Members as well as the principle of the independaence o~~n Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursday~~f the parliamentary mandate; and that any proposed changes to the current rules should avoid creating unnecessary administrative burden for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; acknowledges that a consultation of Members is carried out to provide this Working Group with first-hand information from experienced Members on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies;

Amendment 204 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113

113. Suggests th~~e creation of a Bureau ad-hoc Working Group to carry out a thorough overhaul~~at an evaluation of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before the end of the current mandate to provide this Working Group with first-hand information from experienced Members on thshould be carried out, in order to take into account a more practical application of the rules governing the Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the fact that the Members’ attendance on Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursdayo remedy certain inconsistencies;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113

113. Suggests the creation of a ~~Bureau ad-hoc Working Group~~joint Task Force with Members and the relevant services of the Administration to carry out a thorough overhaul of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before the end of the current mandate to provide this ~~Working Group~~Task Force with first-hand information from experienced Members and officials on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies, such as the fact that the Members’ attendance on Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursdays;

Amendment 206 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113

113. Suggests the ~~creation of a Bureau ad-hoc Working Group to~~Bureau carryies out a thorough overhaul of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (IMMS) while striking a balance between the freedom of the exercise of the mandate, the reputational risks to Parliament and managerial ethics; strongly recommends that a comprehensive consultation of Members is carried out before the end of the current mandate to provide th~~is Working Group~~e Bureau with first-hand information from experienced Members on the practical application of the rules governing Parliament and the ability to identify inconsistencies such as the fact that the Members’ attendance on Fridays is not registered in Brussels during plenary weeks or even if a Parliament’s committee official mission is carried out on Thursdays;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~notes~~welcomes, that following the announcement atby the ~~Bureau meeting of 7 March~~President on 4 April 2022 of, the ~~setting up of a~~ Bureau ad-hoc wWorking gGroup on the G~~EA, which is tasked with evaluating the oper~~eneral Expenditure Allowance (GEA) was established and tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; o~~bserves 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 in~~n 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 Parlia~~unnecessary 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 resolutions~~to the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency;

Amendment 208 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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; notes the announcement at the Bureau meeting of 7 March 2022 of the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc working group on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the operation 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 increasing transparency but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliament’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutions; calls on the Bureau to immediately revise the its decision of 17 October 2022 and bring it in line with what the majority of the Members of the house have demanded on numerous occasions;

Amendment 209 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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; notes the announcement at the Bureau meeting of 7 March 2022 of the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc working group on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the operation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; ~~observ~~welcomes that the Bureau, at its 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 increasing transparency ~~but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliament’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutions~~;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. ~~Recalls that~~Welcomes 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 b~~are 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 pandedmic~~ated 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 dMem~~ocratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodies~~bers and staff while ensuring business continuity and implementing practical solidarity measures vis-à-vis the three host Member States of the Parliament;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 a (new)

114a. Recalls that pursuant to Rule 11(4) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, Parliament provides Members already with the possibility of publishing a voluntary audit or confirmation of their general expenditure allowance expenses; regrets that only 18 voluntary declarations on the use of the general expenditure allowance were submitted during the calendar year 2021; calls on Parliament’s services to send an annual reminder to Members in relation to this possibility; calls on the Bureau to periodically inform the discharge authority of the number of Members who have followed these recommendations;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 a (new)

114a. Repeats its call for a reform of the GEA that would oblige Members to keep all receipts pertaining to the GEA, annually publish an overview of expenditure by category as well as an independent auditor’s opinion on the EP’s website, return the unspent share of the GEA at the end of the mandate and that would establish annual 5% sample checks of Members’ GEA expenditure by Parliament’s services; Calls for Members to be required to externally audit the GEA;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 b (new)

114b. Recalls that the European Ombudsman, in her recommendation of 29 April 2019, in case 1651/2018/THH, found that Parliament’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to the revision of the list of expenses that might be covered by the GEA constituted maladministration and recommended granting public access to a proposal from the Parliament Bureau’s ad hoc Working Group, including the options listed in that proposal; regrets that Parliament rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation and urges Parliament’s administration to reconsider granting public access to the documents in question1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International.

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 a (new)

115a. Notes that in 2021, when contacted in the context of a mission of Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Central America (DCAM), the travel agency could not provide a quote for flights to and from Cuba because, as a US owned company, it has to respect the US embargo against Cuba; notes that the travel agency had to outsource the search for the aforementioned flights to another agency, leading to delays in the process; recalls that Parliament’s bodies are obliged to use a quote from its travel agency in order to establish a financial statement for missions, which may be negatively impacted by restrictions concerning Cuba and other countries on which the US has imposed sanctions; demands that this issue be duly taken into account in the next tender for the selection of a new travel agency;

Amendment 214 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 a (new)

115a. Is deeply concerned about the extent of discretionary powers of responsible DG FINS staff when evaluating members' requests including when selecting the employment or service provider contracts for further ex-post verification; notes lack of formal accountability mechanisms and procedures for ensuring due process in proceedings with DG FINS, increasing the risk of discrimination and unequal treatment; reminds the DG FINS to apply transparent, clear and non-discriminatory standards including when performing the controls on the fulfilment of tasks carried out by local assistants;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~_________________~~ recalls that the Parliament does not have a legal obligation to guarantee particular levels of payouts of the fund, nor would have to assume and take over its obligations in case of its insolvency as no contract between the fund and Parliament exists1a; recalls that the Fund has always constituted a purely supplementary pension1b; also notes that the Fund's beneficiaries contributed to fund only through the General Expenditure Allowance and is concerned by reports that the Fund's investment portfolio included, and possibly still includes, shares in the arms, tobacco, mining and fossil-fuels industries1c; calls in light of these characteristics of the Fund for the Secretary-General to guarantee that no taxpayer money is used for any future bail-out; considers that a review of the financial model of the fund would not be sufficient to prevent additional taxpayers money from being used for future payments; urges the Secretary-General therefore to also propose measures to the Bureau on adjusting the modalities of the fund, including a further increase of the retirement age and a reduction of pension benefits paid out; _________________ 1a https://europa.pvda.nl/wp- content/uploads/sites/458/2020/11/The- legal-status-of-the-guarantees-for-the- MEP-Pension-Fund.pdf 1b https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2021/659763/IPOL_STU(20 21)659763_EN.pdf 1c https://euobserver.com/green- economy/156605 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

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
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

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116

Amendment 219 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)

116a. Stresses the need for more transparency about ongoing investments made by the funds ; underlines that investments should be aligned and coherent with the goals and objectives set by EU policies, calls therefore for any investments in contradiction with those goals to be removed; underlines the potential devastating reputational risks for the European Parliament; notes the inquiry opened by European ombudsman into Parliament’s decision to refuse access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001; notes that the Parliament invoked an exception under the EU legislation on public access to documents, arguing that disclosure could undermine the commercial interests of the private company responsible for the fund; calls on the advisory board of the pension fund to revise all ongoing investments not in line with EU values and goals;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls that once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should be 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~~ notes that some concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not always well reflected in the discussions of the Bureau meetings despite the fact that both 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~~recalls that the composition of the bureau consists of the President of the cEurrent rules without any dedicated 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 toopean Parliament, the 14 Vice-Presidents and the five Quaestors (non-voting members) elected by Parliament; recalls that the exercise of democratic scrutiny ~~which~~ is carried out via the discharge procedure and ~~for which~~ Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodies;

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)

116a. Suggests to all former Members who will be receiving a sufficient pension from another source to voluntarily give up their claims for payments out of the Voluntary Pension Fund;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 123

123. Recalls that these appropriations are intended to cover activities in connection with the Union’s political activities, and that political groups are responsible to Parliament for their use; Notes that OLAF has found irregularities in relation to the diverting of money from budget item 400 for national parties’ purposes and events; calls for a more stringent control on the use of Budget Item 400; is deeply concerned that these appropriations could be used to convey messages contrary to fundamental rights and freedoms or Union values; recalls in particular that Parliament condemns historical revisionism and calls for a common culture of remembrance that rejects the crimes of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the past; calls on Parliament’s administration to carefully scrutinise, even retroactively, any publication funded by political groups that do not comply with those values; 1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International.

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125

125. Recalls the key role of a lively and resilient European democracy underpinned by pluralism of political parties at Union level; emphasises therefore that a level playing field has to be ensured and compliance has to be controlled in full respect of procedural rights; welcomes in this context the essential work of the Authority which independently and in close cooperation with Parliament controls compliance of European political parties and foundations with the legal framework, provides transparency to the citizens, and contributes to the integrity of Parliament elections; urges the budgetary authority to ensure that the Authority is equipped with the necessary resources, in particular human and IT resources, to continue fulfilling its existing mandate including in light of evolving threats of foreign interference, especially to protect Union values, to counter abuses of personal data for electoral purposes and to identify the origin of donations, as well as any new tasks to be provided by the legislator; underlines in this context that the European election year 2024 will be pivotal for financial and functional integrity of European democracy and create a significant surcharge of work for the Authority;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125

125. Recalls the key role of a lively and resilient European democracy underpinned by pluralism of political parties at Union level; emphasises therefore that a level playing field has to be ensured and compliance has to be controlled in full respect of procedural rights; welcomes in this context the essential work of the Authority which independently and in close cooperation with Parliament controls compliance of European political parties and foundations with the legal framework, provides transparency to the citizens, and contributes to the integrity of Parliament elections; urges the budgetary authority to ensure that the Authority is equipped with the necessary resources, in particular human and IT resources, including cybersecurity experts, to continue fulfilling its existing mandate including in light of evolving threats of foreign interference, as well as any new tasks to be provided by the legislator; underlines in this context that the European election year 2024 will be pivotal for financial and functional integrity of European democracy and create a significant surcharge of work for the Authority;

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125 a (new)

125a. Notes in this regard that additional resources for democratic integrity have to be invested by the European Union in its entirety; recalls that the Authority is an independent body of the Union and consequently its appropriations and posts should be distinguished in a transparent manner from those of Parliament; reiterates thus its recommendation to create a separate section for the Authority in the general budget of the European Union, as expressed on its Resolution of 19 October 2022 on the EU draft general for 2023;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125 b (new)

125b. Welcomes the follow-up carried out by the Authority to the Ombudsman’s suggestions for improvement issued in January 2021 in the frame of its case 1094/2020/DL, namely the improvement of the website allowing to increase the amount of information offered to the viewers, the linkage to Parliament’s website, and the publication of information about the Register of European political parties and foundations;

Amendment 23 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recalls that once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should be 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~~262 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 that both 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 dedicated 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 of democratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodies;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
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; re~~comme~~minds that the ~~Committee~~agendas 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 25 #

Motion for a resolution
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 resolutionsand it is responsible for all matters relating to the internal running of Parliament; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands ~~that~~a follow up of resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament ~~be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate,~~in a transparent manner; 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 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 resolutions;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Deeply regrets that no follow-up has been given to the explicit request by Parliament to the Bureau to improve the transparency of its decision-making, including by regularly reporting back to the discharge authority regarding each plenary decision that wasn't implemented and a detailed justification of the reason why the Bureau decided not to implement the request; reiterates its call on the Secretary-General to make a concrete set of proposals to the Bureau with a view to improving the transparency of its decision-making;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Is appalled by the fact that the members of the Bureau have not only ignored the demand of majority of the plenary for a reform of the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA) to make the expenditure more transparent and accountable but have amended the respective rules at their meeting of 17 October 2022 in a way that contradicts these demands;

Amendment 28 #

Mikuláš PEKSA, Patrick BREYER, Markéta GREGOROVÁ, Marcel KOLAJA, Daniel FREUND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)

25b. 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 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 resolutions; suggests to amend the Rules of Procedures so as to require all Bureau decisions on matters previously addressed in the discharge resolutions to be subject to a final plenary vote to ensure that they adequately take into account the will of the majority of the plenary;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 c (new)

25c. Welcomes the proposal from the Secretary-General to enable the Bureau to debate draft decisions on important matters and decide on those at its following meeting; invites the Bureau and Quaestors to implement that practice;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 b (new)

— having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2022 on suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the European institutions;

Amendment 30 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
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~~transferred to building policy of the last few years;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Is concerned~~Observes that the measures introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in modified working conditions in specific services within Parliament ~~which had a negative impact on staff~~, for example at the copy shop in Brussels where members of staff had to work in isolation for a long period of time even after the safety measures were lifted; ~~asks Parliament’s administration to proactively re-evaluate the working conditions changed in possible similar situations~~highlights, that 2021 imposed numerous challenges on the work of the Parliament, the main one being the uncertainty as regards the evolution of the pandemic and the corresponding measures to be taken by the authorities to maintain fair working conditions; notes that isolation was a result of maintaining the measures preventing further spread of the pandemic;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Is concerned that in certain cases, some of the measures introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in modified working conditions in specific services within Parliament which had a negative impact on staff, for example at the copy shop in Brussels where members of staff had to work in isolation for a long period of time even after the safety measures were lifted; asks Parliament’s administration to proactively re-evaluate the working conditions changed in possible similar situations;

Amendment 34 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Is concerned that the measures introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in modified working conditions in specific services such as copy shops and printing units within Parliament which had a negative impact on s~~taff, for example at the copy shop in Brussels~~ome members of staff, where members of staff had to work in isolation for a long period of time even after the safety measures were lifted; asks Parliament’s administration to proactively re-evaluate the working conditions changed in possible similar situations;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
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 fact~~welcomes 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 ~~was~~had 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 36 #

Motion for a resolution
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 fact that the staff annual medical check-up was cancelled in 2021 and recalls that is a statutory right laid down~~notes that exceptionally, staff were invited to do their annual medical check-up externally, under the same conditions as those usually offered by the parliament, as stated in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations; 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 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

Amendment 38 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ

32. Notes that the total cost of the testing centres was EUR 5 415 789 in Brussels, EUR 302 288 in Luxembourg and EUR 39 370 in Strasbourg; welcomes the fact that the public health authorities provided the vaccines and all other material free of charge for Parliament’s vaccination campaign; notes that the total cost of the vaccination centre in Brussels in 2021 was EUR 230 502, including a reinforcement by six interim nurses and the adaptation of an existing IT tool for the administrative aspects (EUR 45 655 and EUR 184 847 respectively); praises the work of the medical service ~~and~~, the staff of the contracted laboratory and the volunteers in Parliament’s tests and vaccination centres in Brussels; notes that in both Strasbourg and Luxembourg, the vaccination campaigns were organised by the national authorities, and thus no cost was incurred by Parliament;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Recalls that Article 4 of the President’s decision of 1 June 2021 on security measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 provided for temperature checks on any person entering Parliament’s buildings; notes that, for that purpose, Parliament purchased different models of body temperature detectors for a total amount of EUR 595 459.,63 (382 515,63 in 2020 and EUR 212 944 in 2021); observes that of the equipment purchased in 2021, 40 temperature detection units installed in the metal detectors were not used as of the 14 March 2022 and 4 cameras are now kept in storage; recalls that no provision was introduced to prevent people who had been denied entry from simply trying again moments later; observes that there is no data on the number of persons having been denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; regrets the conclusion that it is thus not possible to assess the effectiveness of the body temperature checks or the purchase of the equipmentnevertheless, highlights that during the summer it was often the case that persons have been denied access being influenced by the high temperature outside, which has nothing to do with high fever; observes that there is no data on the number of persons having been denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; also observes that with respect to Article 10 of Regulation 2018/1725 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, Parliament did not treat nor collect this data, which is considered to be sensitive data;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas trust in Parliament’s integrity and the rule of law is paramount for the functioning of European democracy; whereas it is key to ensure that democratic processes are not captured by private and external interests and that citizens’ rights are fully respected;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Recalls that Article 4 of the President’s decision of 1 June 2021 on security measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 provided for temperature checks on any person entering Parliament’s buildings; notes that, for that purpose, Parliament purchased different models of body temperature detectors for a total amount of EUR 595 459.,63 (382 515,63 in 2020 and EUR 212 944 in 2021); observes that of the equipment purchased in 2021, 40 temperature detection units installed in the metal detectors were not used as of the 14 March 2022 and 4 cameras are now kept in storage; recalls that no provision was introduced to prevent people who had been denied entry from simply trying again moments later; observes that there is no data on the number of persons having been denied access to Parliament’s premises during the period of validity of the measure; regrets the conclusion that it is thus not possible to assess the effectiveness of the body temperature checks or the purchase of the equipment and stresses the fact that no public money should ever be dispersed in a way that would not allow for a check on the regularity of spending nor the effectiveness of its use;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
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 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)

34a. Notes that following complaints from cleaning staff, a new contractor was hired for the cleaning of Parliament’s main buildings; welcomes that the new contractor is subject to stricter obligations ensuring fair working conditions; recalls that the new contractor committed to taking over all employees who had been employed by the former contractor for at least nine months and requests Parliament to ensure this commitment is actually adhered to; emphasises that staff that is taken over should be offered the possibility to work the same amount of hours they did under the former contractor;

Amendment 43 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Monika HOHLMEIER, Ilana CICUREL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Stresses the major 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;~~; notes, that catering and cleaning services are carried out by external service providers due to their specific nature which does not meet the conditions for internalisation; therefore, is of the opinion that the internalization of ~~essential~~these services ~~such as catering and cleaning~~ should not 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 Luxembourg~~;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. ~~Stresses the major~~Recalls 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 Luxembourg~~require massive recruitment of employees and lead to a significant increase in costs;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Stresses the major 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 opinion that the internalization of essential services such as catering and cleaning should be considered by the governing bodies, as Parliament has recently done with security, drivers and IT services, and it was also made with the CPE2 crèche in Luxembourg; calls on the Secretary-General to carry out a feasibility study on the internalisation of these services and to report back to the Committee on Budgetary Control on the outcome;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. ~~Is concerned about the reported hearing problems that resulted from remote interpreting for long periods of time; is alarmed~~Observes that 63,5% of respondents (127 out of 200) reported hearing problems in a survey on remote simultaneous interpreting conducted by the Staff Interpreters’ delegation at the beginning of 2021 and 54% of respondents (702 out of 1 602) mentioned in a survey conducted among staff and freelance interpreters in May 2022 that working under the conditions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on their health and well-being; ~~recalls the duty of care owed by the European institutions to their employees, which must be taken into account when implementing preventive measures to avoid harm to the health of interpreters~~highlights, that the health issues reported by interpreters are being followed up by Parliament’s Medical services; notes that the follow-up by the Medical Service did not detect an increase in hearing problems for interpreters; highlights, that the administration has deployed targeted actions to improve sound quality;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Is concerned about the reported hearing problems that resulted from remote interpreting for long periods of time with speakers using low quality microphones; is alarmed that 63,5% of respondents (127 out of 200) reported hearing problems in a survey on remote simultaneous interpreting conducted by the Staff Interpreters’ delegation at the beginning of 2021 and 54% of respondents (702 out of 1 602) mentioned in a survey conducted among staff and freelance interpreters in May 2022 that working under the conditions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on their health and well-being; recalls the duty of care owed by the European institutions to their employees, which must be taken into account when implementing preventive measures to avoid harm to the health of interpreters;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Notes that the services of the Interactio platform were acquired in 2021 via an available framework contract that currently does not refer to the ISO standard on conference interpreting; notes that the Secretary-General states in his written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control that the Interactio platform fulfils the ISO sound quality requirements;deleted

Amendment 49 #

Joachim KUHS, Jean-François JALKH, Matteo ADINOLFI, Charlie WEIMERS

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~regret~~notes 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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. 'Notes that the surplus generated by the COVID-19 pandemic was, via C and P budgetary transfers in 2021, mainly allocated to finance Parliament’s building policy, namely ‘lease payments’ was reinforced with EUR 33 559 035 to continue the investment in the Adenauer II building project while "acquisition of immovable property" was reinforced with EUR 22 007 230, allowing the acquisition of the TREVES II building, which together made up 52,1% of the C transfers in 2021; notes that other important transfers addressed unanticipated needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g. for health and prevention measures, technical equipment and expenditure on interpretation to support teleworking and hybrid meetings; notes that further transfers to DG LINC of at least EUR 5 250 000 were related to the logistics of the Conference on the Future of Europe and to investments in various aspects of IT services; considers erroneous the Bureau Decision of April 2021 to commit EUR 10 644 359 and to pay EUR 5 227 276 in relation to the Conference on the Future of Europe;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Notes that 877 out of 6 621 posts (13,2%) were vacant at the end of 2021; acknowledges the general difficulties encountered by the Union institutions, including Parliament, in attracting and retaining talent, which has an impact on the diversity and geographical distribution of the workforce; notes that in 2021 two surveys were run by Parliament’s Directorate-General for Personnel (DG PERS) to find out the main reasons for applying for a job in Parliament and that the results pointed to salaries, but also job significance and flexible working conditions; notes the opinion of Parliament’s administration on the slowness of the competitions conducted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) but recalls the current transformation process aiming to shorten the duration of competitions, to make them more efficient and to better target specialist profiles while keeping objectivity and equality of treatment at the core of the process; notes that in 2021 Parliament started running internal competitions ~~and is concerned about the internal criticisms which have stressed that fast-track recruitment procedures may lead to discrimination between professional categories~~;

Amendment 52 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Notes that 877 out of 6 621 posts (13,2%) were vacant at the end of 2021; acknowledges the general difficulties encountered by the Union institutions, including Parliament, in attracting and retaining talent, which has an impact on the diversity and geographical distribution of the workforce; notes that in 2021 two surveys were run by Parliament’s Directorate-General for Personnel (DG PERS) to find out the main reasons for applying for a job in Parliament and that the results pointed to salaries, but also job significance and flexible working conditions; notes the opinion of Parliament’s administration on the slowness of the competitions conducted by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) but recalls the current transformation process aiming to shorten the duration of competitions, to make them more efficient and to better target specialist profiles while keeping objectivity and equality of treatment at the core of the process; notes that in 2021 Parliament started running internal competitions and is concerned about ~~the internal criticisms which have stressed that~~ fast-track recruitment procedures that may lead to discrimination between professional categories;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
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 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. ~~Calls for a deep reflection on~~Acknowledges 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 adaptedhighlights that physical presence is of crucial importance for the efficient interaction of all actors in every parliamentary process; also draws attention to the need to review the rules on harassment in relation to these ne~~eds of the different services~~w forms of work;

Amendment 55 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)

43a. Regrets that the Parliament, unlike all other institutions including the Commission, does not allow teleworking from outside the place of work; invites the Parliament to align its measures on those of all other institutions which allow staff to work outside the place of employment for a certain maximum amount of days per year with additional possible days to be added upon approval of the appointing authority; considers this alignment to be necessary in view of having uniform rules stemming from the Staff Regulation for the staff of all the EU institutions;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Recalls the seriously inadequate staffing levels in Parliament’s committee secretariats at the end of 2020 due, inter alia, to the increased workload, the working methods applied under the COVID-19 pandemic and the creation of new temporary committees; welcomes the fact that further to the adoption of the 2022 budget, 66 new organigram posts (12 for the Directorate-General for External Policies (DG EXPO) and 54 posts for the Directorate-General for Internal Policies (DG IPOL)), were created in the establishment plan with a view to swiftly reinforcing the support to parliamentary committees; is concerned that, currently, the net increase of staff (including organigram posts and contract agents) is planned to only include 8 additional members of staff, notably as the number of contractual agents has decreased by 23 between January and November 2022; ~~reminds~~welcomes the efforts of the Secretary- General to~~f the commitment to an actual~~ reinforce~~ment of~~ the human resources capacity in DG EXPO and DG IPOL, including an adequate level of contract agents; ~~points out~~acknowledges that all available resources in committees, policy departments, horizontal and support services ~~should~~are to be assigned to the implementation of Parliament’s legislative, budgetary and control powers and procedures; ~~calls therefore for the available resources to be distributed according to the committees’ level of activity in these areas and not only to the number of legislative reports;~~

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. ~~Is concerned about~~Welcomes the Bureau decision of 21 November 2022, based on a Secretary- General’s proposal, on General Implementing Provisions giving effect to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations; welcomes the further efforts of the Secretary-General and the Bureau following the 2020 discharge resolution that called for further efforts to ensure that employment at Parliament is equally attractive to all Union nationalities; insists on the importance of achieving a fair geographical balance among Parliament’s staff provided that the measures are “appropriate”, as required by Article 27, and stresses that competitions must respect fundamental principles enshrined in the Staff Regulations and Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality; reminds that Article 27 of the Staff Regulations enables Parliament to adopt appropriate measures in the event that a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials is observed, which is not justified by objective criteria; recalls furthermore that Article 27 states that “those appropriate measures must be justified and shall never result in recruitment criteria other than those based on merit”; ~~calls for an immediate referral of these General Implementing Provisions to Parliament’s Legal Service for a compliance assessment;~~

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. ~~Expresses concerns regarding the~~Observes particular difficulties in finding candidates willing to work for Parliament in Luxembourg, mainly due to the high cost of living and the increasing price of housing while availing of a salary that is adapted to living conditions in Brussels; asks Parliament’s administration to ~~urgently~~ forward a request to the Commission to address the long-standing and serious problem of salary indexation in Luxembourg by adopting a delegated act to correct the relevant Staff Regulations provision;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) performs a specific assessment of administrative ~~and other~~ expenditure as a single policy group for all Union institutions; highlights that administrative ~~and related~~ expenditure includes expenditure on human resources (salaries, allowances and pensions), accounting for 68% of the total, and on other categories, such as buildings, equipment, energy, communications and information technology;

Amendment 60 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Recalls that the Bureau approved on 13 January 2020 new and more ambitious targets for gender balance at senior and middle management levels of Parliament’s administration to be achieved by 2024, namely 50% female heads of unit, 50% female directors and 40% female directors-general; recalls that a gender action plan for the years 2021-2022 aimed at facilitating the implementation of these targets, as well as comprehensively mainstreaming gender into all activities of Parliament, was subsequently developed and approved by the Bureau on 6 July 2020; welcomes the fact that 42,7% of heads of unit and 50% directors are women, while women occupying director- general positions have increased from 15,4% to 28.,% since 2021; notes that in 2021 Parliament recruited 536 women (50,3%) and 530 men (49,7%) across all categories of staff combined; notes the difficulties to achieve a satisfactory gender balance in some specific services, such as DG SAFE with 81% men and 19% women; asks the Administration for an assessment of the 2021-2022 roadmap based on the selected progress monitoring indicators in the context of the forthcoming discharge;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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 Regulations~~carried out with a large majority of the Bureau;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ad hoc accelerated appointment procedure ~~and an interview made up of only three questions to select its Secretary-General~~that lasted less than 4 months, setting the required grade lower than that of direct subordinates and a single interview made up of only three questions to select its Secretary-General, a position that oversees over 9 000 staff members and a EUR 2 billion annual budget, falls short of what is expected of Parliament in terms of transparency~~, accountability~~ and good administration, and ~~it is profoundly~~has generated public criticism preventing it from being perceived as an open, fair and transparent procedure, which is a barrier to attracting candidates and is also 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 include the appointment to the post of secretary-general as well as to enable staff representatives to participate as observers in the Advisory Committee, which is fully compatible with Article 3(4) of Annex III of the Staff Regulations;

Amendment 64 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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~~the parliament, regarding appointment procedures, should always meet the highest standards in terms of transparency, accountability and good administration, ~~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 participate as observers in the Advisory Committee, which is fully compatible with Article 3(4) of Annex III of the Staff Regulations;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Reiterates its opinion that the particular working relationship between Members and APAs can encompass a situation where both parties decide to terminate the contract by mutual agreement earlier than anticipated but without loss of trust; urges the Bureau to ~~review the implementing measures for Title VII of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants~~consult with Parliament’s Legal Service and DG PERS ofn the ~~European Union (CEOS) to allow~~feasibility of the contract to be terminated by mutual agreement before its expiry date and to inform the committee on budgetary control of the answer;

Amendment 66 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
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 taking into consideration that the parliamentary allowance envelope remains unchanged; is of the opinion that the current situation, aggravated by the accumulated increase in prices over the last few years, ~~is unacceptable as APAs~~puts APAs in a more difficult financial situation haveing 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~~; notes that 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~~notes nevertheless that MEPs hire their own 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 alignmentithin a budget set by Parliament under the same employment conditions as temporary EU staff; highlights also that it is in the hands of the MEPs to decide the daily allowances to Strasbourg for their APAs;

Amendment 67 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
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 unacceptable 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 68 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~unacceptable~~challenging 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 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. ~~Regret~~Observes that the applicable rules adopted by the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents 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 tois concerned that the situation of financing APAs’ travel with the gGeneral eExpenditure aAllowance ~~and obliges APAs to use their annual leave, thus jeopardising their insurance coverage, which represents~~puts the Parliament in a serious reputational risk ~~for Parliament; regre~~; highlights, that neither the Bureau nor the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long-standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determined, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions~~, as reiterated by~~ ; highlights, that the presence of APAs on EP official missions could damage EP’s image and credibility; observe~~ral discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demand~~s also that allowing APAs to participate on official missions imposes specific risks with regards to their insurance coverage; reminds that MEPs are already accompanied by representatives of political groups on these missions;

Amendment 7 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Notes that the Multiannual Financial Framework heading 7 ‘European public administration’ accounts for EUR 10.7 billion or 5,9% of the Union budget in 2021, of which Parliament accounts for EUR 2.1 billion or 19,4%; notes that the Court examined a sample of 60 transactions of this Multiannual Financial Framework heading and found that 15 contained errors (25%), out of which the Court has quantified 5 errors and estimated on that basis that the level of error of the Union’s spending on administration in 2021 is below the materiality threshold; calls on the Court to widen its sample of transactions examined to define the origin of high share of transactions which contain errors, although below the materiality threshold;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. ~~Regret~~Notes 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 determined~~and 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 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. ~~Regret~~Notes 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; regretnotes that neither the Bureau nor the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long- standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determined, 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 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Regrets 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~~in practice leads to 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~~urges the Bureau ~~nor~~and the Conference of Presidents ~~have followed up on the long-standing requ~~to change the current rulest to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determined, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, a~~s reiterated by several discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demand~~nd by doing so remedy a situation where existing rules are not followed, posing a risk to APAs and a serious reputational risk for Parliament;

Amendment 73 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55 a (new)

55a. Reiterates that APAs accompanying Members to the part- sessions in Strasbourg, should be issued a mission order and be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable rules;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
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 take~~highlights 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 t~~hat APAs be~~o 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 75 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~be forbidden to take on ~~such~~any financial responsibility, which can amount to substantial sums of money in some cases; insists, therefore, to the Bureau that APAs be eliminated 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 ro; calls therefore for the Bureau to further revise the rules for visitors’ groups in order to differentiate between the role of organising the visit and financial responsibility for it; considers that APAs may be responsible for organising the visit if requested but it must be forbidden that they are the one financially responsible;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Recalls that Members may offer a traineeship to nationals of third countries, provided that they ensure that trainees comply with visa requirements of the country of designation; notes that third- country workers coming to Belgium for a traineeship in Brussels longer than 90 days must apply for a prior authorisation with the competent regional public service, i.e. Brussels Economy and Employment; is alarmed that Parliament’s competent service agreed with the latter that the relevant Member’s office would submit the candidate’s dossier which in practice means that an APA is appointed responsible before the public authorities, including the provision of their personal data and being legally accountable; recalls that the Parliament cannot put the APAs in a situation that could be detrimental to their rights as statutory personnel and calls on Parliament’s administration to find a different solution that will not endanger the privacy and legal security of the APAs or be a risk to the security of Parliament;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Recalls that Members may offer APA’s position or a traineeship to nationals of third countries, provided that they ensure that t~~rainees~~hey comply with visa requirements of the country of designation; notes that third- country workers coming to Belgium for a traineeship in Brussels longer than 90 days must apply for a prior authorisation with the competent regional public service, i.e. Brussels Economy and Employment; is alarmed that Parliament’s competent service agreed with the latter that the relevant Member’s office would submit the candidate’s dossier which in practice means that an APA from the member’s office is appointed responsible before the public authorities, including the provision of their personal data and being legally accountable; calls on Parliament’s administration to find a different solution that will not endanger the privacy and legal security of the APAs or be a risk to the security of Parliament;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Notes the Schuman Recruitment and Development Programme launched for the first time by Parliament’s administration during the March 2021 traineeship period; regrets that Parliament’s administration failed to consult the Staff Committee on this initiative at an early stage and notes the negative opinion expressed in its resolution of 18 October 2021, which calls into question the objectivity and fairness of this programme; is aware of the difficulties encountered by Parliament’s administration in recruiting and retaining talent for the institution, in particular young professionals, ~~but i~~insists concerned about the wide margin of subjectivity given to directorates-general for the selection of participants, which undermines the essential principles of transparency, objectivity and fairness of the Union’s public service; draws attention to the discriminatory nature of this programme towards members of staff that cannot benefit from this privileged access to contract agent posts, particularly APAs a recruitment based on the essential principles of transparency, objectivity and fairness of the Union’s public service; stresses that recruitment procedures must be merit- based, competitive, fair and transparent, and calls on the Secretary- General to involve both the Staff Committee and the APAs Committee in a revision of this programme to find an agreement on the model to follow in the future;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with concern that the Court’s annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2021 presents specific findings on Parliament, namely errors in two payments: (i) a minor over-payment for IT services caused by an incorrect application of contract terms, and (ii) one payment by Parliament to one of its political groups; ~~is concerned~~notes that the internal procurement rules adopted by the Bureau and Parliament’s guidelines on their application allow the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts whereas the Financial Regulation stipulates the use of open or restricted procurement procedures; notes ~~with concern,~~ furthermore, the Court’s finding that the political group failed to fully follow these internal rules, ~~as it did not seek enough tenders and did not adequately document~~due to the difficulty to seek enough tenders because of the specificity of the criteria used to award the contract; highlights that the Court has previously reported shortcomings in transactions relating to procurement by political groups;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~establish~~consider whether an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations could be introduced;

Amendment 81 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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 establish an automatic update on the basis of the food price variations;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
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 83 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~recall~~notes that ~~unethical behaviours must be prevented,~~weak ethics rules and a lack of enforcement have the potential to compromise the integrity of the institution; recalls that all must be done to prevent unethical behaviours and in case it appeared it must be persecuted and condemned for significantly damage to 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 independent Union ethics body; as well as Parliament’s resolution of 15 December 2022 on Suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the European institutions1a; _________________ 1a This amendment is based on a recommendation from Transparency International;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

Amendment 86 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned and strengthens the current rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of thehighlights the need to reinforce trust in the European decision-making by strengthening transparency, ethics and conduct in the European Parliament; stresses that an abuse or misuse of EP’s Rules of Procedure and ~~the~~ Members’ Code of Conduct~~, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, in ord~~ should be immediately addressed in a thorough and systematic manner; recalls the crucial role played by Members in the European decision- making, while protecting the freedom of Members’ mandate, as elected representatives; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying, NGOs funded in an unclear manner or other interest representatives constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero to ~~ensure~~lerance and heightened vigilance; highlights, that it is essential that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts;

Amendment 88 #

Gilles BOYER, Olivier CHASTEL, Ilana CICUREL, Michal WIEZIK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

Amendment 89 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Lara WOLTERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned, ensures fully implementation and strengthens the current control rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of the Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, in order to ensure that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts; echoes the proposal to create a special advisory committee on integrity, transparency and corruption with the participation of representatives of the Administration, APAs representatives, and also independent experts; recommends mandatory anti-corruption and transparency training for Members, APAs and staff members;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes ~~with concern~~ that the Court’s annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2021 presents specific findings on Parliament, namely errors in two payments: (i) a minor over- payment for IT services caused by an incorrect application of contract terms, and (ii) one payment by Parliament to one of its political groups; is concerned that the internal procurement rules adopted by the Bureau and Parliament’s guidelines on their application allow the use of negotiated procurement procedures for high-value contracts whereas the Financial Regulation stipulates the use of open or restricted procurement procedures; notes with concern, furthermore, the Court’s finding that the political group failed to fully follow these internal rules, as it did not seek enough tenders and did not adequately document the criteria used to award the contract; highlights that the Court has previously reported shortcomings in transactions relating to procurement by political groups;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned and strengthens the current rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of the Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, amongst others through appointing external independent experts on integrity to the Committee, in order to ensure that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts; highlights in this regard also the need for stricter rules, more transparency, and monitoring on side-income of Members as this may lead to conflicts of interest, as well as requiring more detailed declarations of interests;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

Amendment 92 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)

62a. Highlights the recent breaches of transparency and corruption in connection with the NGOs “Fight Impunity” and “No Peace Without Justice”; observes that in some cases the work of NGOs is used to finance illegal activities and influence Parliament´s decision-making on behalf of third parties; stresses that the rules of access to the premises of the European Parliament for stakeholders and NGOs needs to be revised; highlights that non-registered stakeholders and NGOs should have no right to be heard in Parliament; calls for automated mandatory transparency checks by the administration and corresponding controls by the committee secretariats;

Amendment 94 #

Markus PIEPER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Markus PIEPER, Andrey NOVAKOV

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Andrey NOVAKOV, Petri SARVAMAA, Monika HOHLMEIER, Arnaud DANJEAN

Motion for a resolution
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 97 #

Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Lara WOLTERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)

62a. Calls for the provision of all necessary resources to ensure that the internal rules related to the Transparency Register are effectively enforced, including, where appropriate, the imposition of adequate sanctions; recommends in particular that digital solutions are used to integrate the Transparency Register in all Parliament's activities involving external entities, such as requesting the registration number for accreditation of visitors and for organisation of events, as well as to cross- check the relevant records and databases;

Amendment 98 #