President. The next item is the report by Mr Grech on behalf of the Committee on Budgets on Parliament’s estimates for 2007 [2006/2022(BUD)] (A6-0188/2006).

  Louis Grech (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, 2007, the first year of the new financial perspective, will be a year of spending consolidation in Parliament’s budget estimates for the coming year. Through this stocktaking exercise and consolidation process, we must strengthen what is proving to be efficient, and shed, or at least reduce, activities which do not add value.

In this type of scenario, the implementation of activity-based budgeting commands greater importance. The report, moreover, stresses the fact that the budget should reflect actual budgetary needs. This explains why it is necessary for the retention or otherwise of the self-imposed ceiling of 20% to be evaluated thoroughly. We need to carry out a cost-benefit analysis to examine what serves Parliament’s best interests, including its financial independence now and in the future, when the Members’ Statute amounting to circa EUR 100 million per annum comes into force in 2009.

This budgetary approach translates into more effective, transparent and analytical estimates, which leads me to another key issue in the report: the acquisition of parliamentary buildings. In this respect, and considering the recent events regarding the purchase of the WIC and SDM buildings in Strasbourg, we have no hesitation in putting into reserve the EUR 50 million intended for the purchase of those premises.

It would be inadvisable to release these funds until the outstanding and unclear issues surrounding those premises have been satisfactorily clarified. We do not wish to underestimate the positive financial impact of our acquisition policy. We have repeatedly commented on the substantial savings this policy has created over the years. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to consider re-examining the overall acquisition policy of Parliament’s buildings, including the information offices in the various Member States.

The report also addresses the issues relating to the visitors’ programme and information policy. Regrettably, no decision has been taken on the EUR 5 million allocated to improving the visitors’ programme. This situation is untenable and Members expect the Bureau to take a decision prior to first reading.

In 2006 Parliament decided to invest in three major information projects, which included the building of a new visitors’ centre, audiovisual facilities and web television. In this respect, the administration has put forward for our consideration funds amounting to EUR 25 million to implement these projects in 2007. In principle we agree that more needs to be done to improve connectivity between the citizens and the new institutions that represent them. However, more precise and detailed information regarding political oversight, organisation, cost structure and programme contents have to be submitted before releasing all, or some, of these funds from the reserve. Bearing in mind the existing budgetary constraints, we are not as yet convinced that the request for an additional 74 posts is justified, especially at a time when we are advocating spending consolidation. Under these circumstances, the respective appropriation has been put in reserve until detailed information justifying this request is available prior to first reading.

On another level, it is to be noted that EUR 48 million are being allocated for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. In the event of a postponement, the financial impact of circa 24 million should be deducted from the 2007 budget.

Another important area we have focused upon in our report is that of the assistance and facilities available to Members. In this regard, the administration will be conducting a quality survey on the service being given to Members. We feel confident that the stocktaking process on the raising the game exercise, together with the survey’s conclusions, should go a long way towards improving this important aspect.

In our report we have also referred to a number of other priorities that we have to address, such as training, recruitment related to enlargement, the assistants’ statute, security and contracts relating to external supplies. Regrettably, I do not have the time to address all these points, but we certainly cannot ignore them.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues, shadow rapporteurs, coordinators and members of the Committee on Budgets for their cooperation and constructive participation in drawing up this report with the common goal of improving the performance, quality and accountability of Parliament’s operation.

  Ville Itälä, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Grech; he has done an excellent job, and the level of cooperation has been very agreeable. It has been a pleasant experience collaborating on this project. I would nevertheless like to make a few observations.

First, it has always been said that we are spending 20% more than in the previous year. There may not be any principle at work here. The principle may just be that we are giving careful consideration to what needs we have and how we can use taxpayers’ money sparingly.

Then there are the budget headings, and especially information policy. Last year we decided by a clear majority that we would add EUR five million for groups of visitors. Members of Parliament are expecting this EUR five million to be used, but it has not. This seems somewhat frustrating. Why does Parliament decide things in general if they are not put into practice? I hope that Parliament’s President will ensure that Parliament’s will is implemented with regard to this matter and that the EUR five million will be spent.

Then the desire was expressed to start having web television, although no decisions have been taken on this. In my opinion, the Committee has quite rightly made it a condition that there should be long-term financial plans for it: consideration of what it will cost next year, in five years’ time and even over a longer period of time, so that we know where we are going and how the administration will work. Before that happens, no decisions can be made.

I would further like to mention one detail connected with the children’s nursery. Parliament has abandoned the idea of a nursery here and has bought a splendid house: a nice setting for the children but totally in the wrong place. The nursery ought to have been in this building or close by. How we behave as an employer is important. We should set an example, and I am disappointed with the Social Democrats, who do not care about families with children, who put people down, and who seem contemptuous of families with children. We vote in favour of the sports centre, money for web television and for many other comforts, but we do not care about families with children. I hope that this issue will be raised again.

  Neena Gill, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very thorough work on this report. I applaud Louis Grech on the emphasis on improving the effective use of the funds. For this reason, I strongly support the introduction of activity-based budgeting. I have been asking for this system to be adopted by the Parliament for the last five years, as it provides an opportunity to demonstrate greater transparency. I have been disappointed, however, by the reluctance of the administration to introduce such a system and I think it is about time we did so. Therefore, I would ask the Secretary-General to take this issue up very seriously and see what progress we can make on that front.

The second issue I want to raise is the annual question of the car service. I do not go along with what is in the report, namely to increase the support of additional funds for the chauffeur service for the Members. I support the amendment that the Verts/ALE Group has put forward, which is to look at the service and see how we can improve it without increasing the funds. We do not need to start increasing funds, especially when we have taxi reimbursement available for Members.

On information and communication, we cannot stress enough the need for results that are essential for us to connect with the citizens. I thoroughly support the suggestions of having web TV and an improved visitors’ centre.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, I would also very much like to thank Mr Grech for his constructive and thorough work on Parliament’s Budget for 2007. We are dealing here with a budget of just under EUR 1.4 billion, and there are three points to which I would like to draw attention. The first of these is that nearly half of the expenditure is caused by the geographical spread of Parliament’s activities and the fact that we work in many languages. These are conditions that are very specific to the European Parliament but also conditions that we are not, ourselves, in control of.

Secondly, I wish to emphasise the need constantly to reprioritise and to bring about greater efficiency, particularly with regard to staffing policy, where redeployment is required. I would like to draw attention to the need to have better facilities for Members, so that they are able to work more efficiently, and to make information policy more effective, in which connection there is a need carefully to assess the contributions of the national information offices.

A third point that I would like to raise is the matter of the purchase of buildings in Strasbourg. There has clearly been a lot of public blustering about this issue, and it would be entirely unacceptable if it should turn out that the location of Parliament in Strasbourg has been a money machine for the city. So we are forced, for the time being, to put the purchase of buildings on hold. Personally, I would prefer it if Parliament were able to content itself with being located in Brussels, so that we could work effectively on this issue too.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I am speaking in the expectation of being allowed the same length of time as the previous speakers, to whom you were very generous. What you present us with here is really an extremely sad situation. Yet again, the report shows that the budget is to be raised by another 4.2% and that another 250 new posts are to be established. This makes what you are doing here an expression of organised irresponsibility. It is clear that a group of people have hijacked the European project, and I am, regrettably, convinced that those who acquiesce once again will go down in history as benighted squanderers.

If you took this report, translated it into all the official languages and gave it to the men and women of Europe to read, they would be horrified; they would say, ‘What are you thinking? We do not have that any more; we cannot afford that any more! Even half of that would be too much.’ And everybody here knows that, but they do not act accordingly. It reminds me very much of the late Soviet Union, where every year they would talk about new record harvests and new maximisations and efficiency gains. What we have here is a disgrace and is unworthy of the European Parliament.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 11.00 a.m.