The Committee
on Budgets unanimously adopted the report drawn up by Vladimír MAŇKA,
calling on the Parliament to approve the estimates of the European Parliament
for the financial year 2010. At this stage, the overall level of the budget
is EUR 1 571 512 726, which represents a rate of
increase of 2.72% compared to 2009 and which leaves a better margin of
manoeuvre for the new parliament. The committee decides to maintain the
contingency reserve at the same level as in 2009 (EUR 10 million). The
overall level of the 2010 budget would also stay below the traditional
voluntary share of 20% of heading 5 (administrative expenditure) of the
multi-annual financial framework.
Recalling the
challenges to which Parliament should respond as outlined in its resolution
of 10 March 2009 on the budgetary guidelines, MEPs highlight that
there are two fundamental elements of the 2010 budget: (i) optimal and
equal access to language facilities for members; (ii) actions related to
Parliament's enhanced legislative role.
MEPs consider
that better planning needs to be considered for its 2010 budget and that it be
made more transparent. Moreover, they note that the full budget proposal
should be presented at the estimates stage in the spring and that the use of
'amending letters' in the autumn must be limited to truly unforeseen events
and/or technical updates. They welcome the timely cooperation between the
Bureau and Committee on Budgets (notably the pilot project on enhanced
cooperation). Furthermore, MEPs recall that the principles of prior
consultation and transparency are essential. In particular, they stress the
need to maintain a sufficient level of financial resources needed for major
issues.
On a more
technical level, MEPs make the following points:
- Posts and
restructuring: MEPs stress the considerable
increases already granted for 2009 and consider, in this context, that
it is premature, at this stage of the budgetary procedure, to authorise
the creation of 30 new posts, while noting that the level of
redeployment of posts suggested is very low. They therefore decide not
to authorise the creation of these posts (provisionally). MEPs also note
the re-structuring plan for DG INLO in relation to the maintenance and
management of the Parliament's buildings and the creation of specialised
central services to improve the quality of budgetary control and of
public procurement procedures. The final decisions in this area are part
of the first reading of the budget in the autumn. According to MEPs, the
choice to be made, from a budgetary point of view, relates to the level
of property expertise Parliament needs to have in-house. MEPs note, in
this respect, that the single external report deals mainly with building
security, but also maintenance and management issues and how they can be
improved. They therefore consider it essential that the medium to long-term
building strategy plan be presented in good time before the first
reading. Moreover, they call for further information concerning the
amount requested as a reserve and delete the corresponding
appropriations. MEPs also attach importance to the new security
policy for the Parliament. They stress, in particular, the
importance of an optimum use of resources (particularly concerning a
cost-effective balance between internal staff and external agents). MEPs
are also looking forward to receiving the cost-savings plan already
drawn up within DG Presidency, and are concerned about the cost
developments for operational budget lines related to security.
- Multilingualism: MEPs reiterate their wish that equal access to language
facilities for members be an essential element of the 2010 budget.
Whilst recognising that an effort has been made to accommodate this
wish, MEPs consider that this obviously needs to be combined with the
best possible use of resources. They call on their administration to
urgently address the Inter-Institutional Working Group on
multilingualism in order to prepare a proposal (technical level) in
order to make sure that inter-institutional cooperation in this field,
especially as concerns the use of any free capacity, is improved.
They are disappointed that the system in place for better sharing of
translation between institutions is hardly used at all and expect to see
a proposal on where possibilities for improvement exist before the first
reading. In particular, MEPs call for a cost/benefit analysis regarding
translation in peak times, including the outsourcing to freelancers, as
well as an update on how such resource sharing could be applied in all
the fields in which the institutions have temporarily unused capacities,
without diminishing the institution's independence and operational
capacities (interpretation, renting out the premises, copy services,
etc.);
- Legislation: MEPs welcome the fact that the Bureau's proposal follows up
on last year's main priority, namely legislative work, but are of the
opinion that the posts suggested need to be further analysed and should
be considered within an overall package;
- Information
and Communication Technology (ICT): MEPs
recall that clarification has been asked in the IT sector and expect a
clear plan for an overall ICT strategy for Parliament. They consider
that such a plan must strike a careful balance between the necessary
'centralisation' and economies-of-scale already implicit with the
creation of a new and separate DG for this area, while guarding against
overlaps and double spending. MEPs note the proposal for reducing the
dependence on external consultants in this area (and the proposal for an
increase of posts). According to MEPs, significant staff increases
should lead to savings in consultant costs;
- Multi-annual
projects: MEPs recall their expectations
regarding important initiatives and projects in the field of
information, such as the new library analytical service, the Policy
Units of committees, as well as the vast array of other available
information sources/systems, which take up increasing levels of
appropriations. They therefore call for budgetary and functional
stocktaking. They also note the fact that the Web-TV project is included
at already foreseen levels in the Bureau's proposals and would welcome some
further information on 'the return' for this investment (notably whether
this project already has, or will, reduce the need for other types of
information in print). MEPs also wish to leave the Visitors Centre
a real possibility to get on with its business and open as soon as
possible, in any case no later than the beginning of 2010. They
therefore look forward to a final decision on the management concept of
the Centre, whilst limiting out-sourcing.
Lastly, MEPs
stress that a more detailed examination of individual budget items should
take place before the first reading of the budget in the autumn. They note
that they will examine and take the final budgetary decisions at that time.