Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 8 March 2005 - Strasbourg

28. 2005 and 2006 Budgets

  President. The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- the report (A6-0043/2005) by Mr Dombrovskis, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for Sections II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII (A) and VIII (B) and on the European Parliament's preliminary draft estimates (Section I) for the 2006 budgetary procedure

Section I – European Parliament

Section II – Council

Section IV – Court of Justice

Section V – Court of Auditors

Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee

Section VII – Committee of the Regions

Section VIII (A) – European Ombudsman

Section VIII (B) – European Data Protection Supervisor

[2004/2271(BUD)];

- the report (A6- /2005) by Mr Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on draft amending budget No 1/2005 of the European Union for the financial year 2005 [COM(2005)0025 – C6- /2005 – 2005/2014(BUD)];

- the report (A6- /2005) by Mrs Jensen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the estimates of the European Parliament for an amending budget of the European Union for the financial year 2005 (salary adjustment) [2005/2034(BUD)].

  Dombrovskis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the guidelines of the budget for other European Union institutions for 2006 have set the following priorities.

The first is the successful completion of the 2004 round of enlargement, by fully integrating representatives of the new EU Member States into the EU institutions, as well as preparations for the next round of EU enlargement, when Bulgaria and Romania will join. Nearly a year has already passed since the enlargement of the EU, but still many permanent positions which have been set aside for the new Member States remain vacant, and this is an unacceptable situation. One of the problems to be emphasised in this connection is the excessive red-tape and slow procedures for taking on staff.

The second is effective and very targeted use of European Union budget resources. This priority encompasses such matters as: focusing EU institutional expenditure on fundamental tasks; backing requests for new permanent positions from the budget only after having assessed the possibility of redistributing resources and staff within the framework of the existing budget; backing new initiatives only after having assessed their impact on the budget and interinstitutional cooperation with a view to economical and effective use of budget resources. For example, in order to ensure more appropriate use of EU budget resources in relation to various EU institutions’ needs for extra work space, chiefly in connection with EU enlargement, we invite all the EU institutions to work together and to allow their premises to be used for the requirements of other institutions. This will make it possible to provide the work space necessary for various meetings and other events without unnecessary extra expense on building or renting premises. Extra capacity in this sphere is huge. As an example, we might mention the European Parliament plenary session halls in Brussels and Strasbourg, which lie empty most of the time.

The third is improving EU budget terminology, making it more complete and more transparent in order to show taxpayers more clearly how their resources are used.

In speaking about the European Parliament budget, I would firstly like to stress that a total expenditure ceiling will be set according to careful evaluation of justified needs. Achieving a ceiling of 20% of total administrative expenditure is not an end in itself. I would like to emphasise that a better explanation to citizens of the European Parliament’s work in this connection, placing particular emphasis on the European Parliament’s representative role for the EU Member States, is an important aspect of Parliament’s work in 2006. Preparations by the European Parliament to play a larger role in the legislative sphere, as set out in the EU Constitutional Treaty, are a second important aspect.

Finally, I should like to say a few words about the overall EU budget for 2006. I would like to emphasise that 2006 is the last year of the existing Financial Perspectives. It is, therefore, important that the total amount of 2006 budget commitment and payment appropriations should honour those commitments which the EU entered into, including those connected with the enlargement of the European Union. Thus an attitude such as the EU Council adopted over the European Union budget for 2000, where it artificially blocked the amount of payment appropriations, is unacceptable. If we want to see the European Union as a reliable partner, it is important that the European Union should fulfil its commitments, including the commitments which it entered into in connection with the enlargement of the EU.

  Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 2005 is going to be an important year for all the European institutions, including the European Commission, of course.

I believe it is important to wish the European Commission a good start to its relations with Parliament, and the Committee on Budgets has found the best way of doing so by accepting yesterday amending budget No 1/2005 with very little internal discussion. We have decided to do so without amendments, at a single reading, and with the urgency the European Commission wished to see. We accept the changes of activity from one political area to another, because we believe that the new Commission and the new Commissioners require certain changes to the organisation of the Commission’s services, because each Commissioner will have a very different portfolio to their predecessor and because it is necessary to make these small adjustments to the organisational structure.

The fact that the budgetary effect is neutral makes it easy for Parliament to adopt this amending budget without any problem. In return, we hope that the organisation of the Commission’s services will operate perfectly and that this small change we are introducing can lead to better execution of the budget by the various Directorates-General.

We are aware that further amending budgets that will arise during the year will cause rather more difficulty. It may not be possible to approve them at a single reading. I therefore believe, Commissioner, that this is a good opportunity to demonstrate perfect interinstitutional cooperation and for the three institutions to approve this amending budget with the urgency you had requested.

  Jensen (ALDE), rapporteur. – (DA) Mr President, I shall also present an amending budget, which implies a response. It is the amending budget for Parliament’s financial year 2005, which must take account of the fact that staff salaries and pensions in 2004 were adjusted by a rate lower than had originally been expected. The adjustment of salaries and pensions, adopted by the Council at the end of last year, only amounted to 0.7%, and, when we prepared the budget for this year, we anticipated a 2.6% increase in salaries. Like the other EU institutions, Parliament can now, therefore, cut back the staff appropriations in the 2005 budget. That is something about which we, of course, agreed in the budget conciliation. When all is said and done, we are, then, concerned here with a EUR 7.98 million reduction in the European Parliament’s expenditure on, for example, salaries and that is something to be welcomed.

In the same connection, we are directing the Secretary-General of the European Parliament to examine Parliament’s budget in July, to assess the situation and to see if we need another amending budget. The background to this is that we envisage the real possibility of a budget surplus for Parliament this year, meaning that the appropriations will be discontinued at the end of the year. This is because, for a number of years, Parliament has secured us future savings on rent by purchasing buildings – a very sensible policy, meaning that we can save some money. In 2004, the ‘mopping-up’ transfers of EUR 190 million made it possible to release a portion of the appropriations we have from the 2005 budget for buildings. I am well aware that Parliament’s services are engaged in negotiations about further purchases of buildings that we are at present renting, but these are at an early stage, so we do not know what position we shall ultimately be in.

The fact is, however, that the appropriations we have in 2005 following the reduction for salaries will make it possible to fund important areas we do not at the moment have in the budget, notably the preparations for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and they will perhaps also make it possible for us to purchase further buildings housing Parliament’s information offices in the Member States. We shall return to this subject in July.

I also have a number of remarks to make concerning Mr Dombrovskis’ report on the 2006 budget, now that there is time for doing so. This budget will, of course, also be characterised by the preparations for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania which, as Mr Dombrovskis pointed out, it is anticipated will take place in 2007. It will also be characterised by the already completed enlargement to include ten new countries and by the continued need to recruit staff from the new Member States. A huge effort has, of course, already been made to acquire the upwards of 1 200 new employees we have obtained in Parliament, an effort that has in many ways been a great success. I think, however, that our rapporteur, Mr Dombrovskis, is right to demand that we investigate whether the resultant staffing situation is satisfactory in all respects. We must ensure that recruitment does not take an unnecessarily long time and is not unduly bureaucratic. It must be ensured that we have the translators and interpreters we need. We must see to it that, as Members of Parliament, we have access to the necessary expertise so that we can do some serious legislative work. The quantity of legislation has, of course, risen significantly in recent years in view of the new treaties, and the demand for better legislation, with which we of course all agree, means that we must have proper legal guidance. Moreover, there must be resources for proper impact assessments in connection with the legislation, including assessments of the financial consequences for the public sector, the EU budget, the national treasuries and the business sector. We therefore need more assistance.

Last but not least, I am delighted that, in Parliament’s draft budget for 2006, we propose a significant strengthening of Parliament’s information policy. This involves a radical evaluation of information policy so that we ensure that we achieve the objectives of the effort to provide information. It must become easier and simpler for journalists and people in general to follow the legislative process. It must become easier for people to find out how they can secure their civil liberties with Parliament’s help. We must ensure that the fine speechifying about transparency does, in actual fact, bear fruit. My group and I are, therefore, also in favour of our giving more financial support to information policy, even if we always say that we must be economical. It is also important for us to increase our efforts in favour of decentralisation by means of the information offices in the Member States where a better sense can be obtained of the practical needs that exist for information. I would thank Mr Dombrovskis for his efforts. We are able to support his report.

  Ferber, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are three reports up for debate, and I should like to focus largely on two of them, because I fully agree with the content of my colleague Mr Garriga Polledo’s report, and indeed it probably requires the least discussion.

I should like to thank my colleague Mr Dombrovskis, in particular, for taking the trouble to tackle the budgets of the other institutions for 2006, because I think that 2006 will be a very important year as the financial negotiations with the Council unfold. I should like to say very clearly – and here the rapporteur has my support – that if we are to be credible in our ongoing arguments with the Commission about how to make the best use of Europe’s scant resources, we must also look at how we and, in turn, the other institutions, can achieve the greatest possible effect with the minimum of resources.

At the same time, I am a little concerned that Parliament is being rather careless with the hard-earned dividends resulting from the speed with which we managed to fund the buildings here in Strasbourg and Brussels and, later, Luxembourg. That is not right, in my view. On the contrary, Parliament, too, should prove to itself that it is able to cope on the resources at its disposal.

I support our rapporteur’s approach of putting the spotlight clearly on the issue of working conditions in this regard. There are now 25 Member States, with – if I remember rightly – 21 languages. It has become more difficult to work together at Group level and in working parties – even in small circles – without resources commensurate with the translation capacity necessitated. This is a very important point if Parliament’s efficiency and ability to work are to be guaranteed.

I do not believe that it would be helpful in this regard to consider equipping the Chamber with computers to enable us to read the amendments, however. This is incompatible with our voting system. Nor do I believe that it makes sense to wire the whole Parliament and install a wireless LAN in all the buildings; these are not our core tasks in this connection. I would ask the Presidency of Parliament to proceed very carefully on these issues.

This brings me directly to Mrs Jensen’s report on supplementary budget No 1/2005. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has proposed a motion to make appropriate cuts in the buildings reserve already, within the framework of the budgetary procedure. I find it most regrettable that, yesterday evening, the Presidency was not already able to release, within the framework of the supplementary budget, the resources that are likely to be surplus to requirements; in other words, to reduce the budget correspondingly. It is unfortunate that that was not done. This will no doubt come back to haunt us before too long. This much must be stated very clearly here: if a ‘mopping-up’ transfer of EUR 142 million was made in 2004 – which amounts to almost 10% of Parliament’s budget – I start asking myself whether there is any point in continuing to draw up a budget for this House if this budget ends up taking a completely different course, and thus what was put forward by the budgetary authority – which is what we are in the case of Parliament’s budget, by virtue of the gentlemen’s agreement – ends up being disregarded. This point needs serious attention. I want no further part in such a performance.

  Guy-Quint, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Ferber has just said, Mr Garriga Polledo’s report does not really pose a problem as we knew that, given the changes that have taken place in the Commission, we would probably need a supplementary and amending budget.

I am going to start with a few comments on Mrs Jensen’s report on the SAB for the European Parliament. It is irrefutable with regard to the estimates for Parliament’s operating costs. We can only be concerned that these estimates were distorted for items as important as estimates for appropriations for salaries for officials and estimates for property appropriations.

Our rapporteur’s recommendations calling on our administration to be more vigilant bear the mark of common sense. Through this report, we are also respecting our commitment to budgetary dialogue, as it still leaves the expenditure envisaged in the 2005 budget available to be spent, and even allows for financing Bulgaria and Romania’s accession to the Union with the non-allocated appropriations. There is, therefore, no reason to oppose this administrative action.

With regard to the report on the guidelines for the appropriations for the other institutions presented to us today by Mr Dombrovskis, first of all I must thank him for his excellent work, and for the speed with which he has enabled us to debate and vote on these guidelines in this March sitting.

Following in the tradition of our budgetary guidelines in this area, it is essential that all of the institutions continue the effort to complete enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania, which the 2006 budget must allow for. We share our rapporteur’s concerns. Only a last-minute controversy on the measures to be put in place in the Court of Justice will lead my group to better verify some solutions proposed in Mr Deprez’s report.

Mr Dombrovskis’ report, backed up by the previous report by Mrs Jensen, points out that Parliament’s budget must enable it to equip itself with the additional resources to enable us to better respond to the scale of our task and the expectations of the citizens. In our view, a reduction in Parliament’s budget below the agreed 20% cannot be envisaged until such time as the policy of purchasing various premises for Parliament to have a presence and to carry out its work has come to an end. Above all, this budget is essential in order for Parliament to increase the interpreting and translation resources available to the various committees.

I would also like to draw your attention to professional assistance for MEPs, which must be increased. The amounts allocated to each MEP for staff are absolutely inadequate given the complexity of Parliament’s new powers. Moreover, the lack of a statute for our assistants is a situation that is entirely unworthy of a political institution that places an innovative society that respects human rights at the heart of its work. Having a professional statute is a right for our assistants, but giving our assistants a statute is a duty for us as legislators. Likewise, I think that we should think about the problem of the statute for MEPs. When I hear some MEPs saying that it is difficult for them to join a pension scheme because of the cost of some of these schemes, I think that is entirely unworthy of the democratic institution that we are.

Also, like Mrs Jensen, I wish to draw your attention to the problems with Parliament’s communication policy. This policy needs to be improved and while new resources are essential, new techniques and a new approach to communication are now a priority in our view. At a time when the draft constitutional treaty is being voted on by referendum or parliamentary vote, we know how essential this information for citizens is. But we need to establish simple, daily and effective information to pass on and decentralise the interest among citizens in the work that we do here. We see this as a priority that should not only be reflected in figures in the budget, but in good professional work by the ad hoc Parliament services.

It is therefore clear to us that the idea of lowering the Parliament budget below 20% is not acceptable given our commitments and, above all, the expansion of our powers. As long as we lack the effective resources to fully carry out our task, we will not be able to get back to the principle that is essential to our role and therefore to European democracy.

  Virrankoski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, the report by Mr Dombrovskis under discussion on guidelines for the 2006 budget, which concern Sections other than the Commission, creates a basis for the forthcoming budget for these institutions. I wish, even at this stage, to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dombrovskis, for his excellent work. I likewise wish to thank Mrs Jensen and Mr Garriga Polledo, who today are proposing mainly technical amendments to this year’s budget, according to their own areas of responsibility.

The European Union is still going through a period of adjustment to the year 2006. The integration of the new Member States has to be completed, just as the rapporteur said in his opening speech. In particular, this means bringing the situation with regard to human resources up to date. Furthermore, the demands of multilingualism must be met. The interpreting facilities have to be up to date in all respects, and the translation service has to run smoothly. Multilingualism is an important value in Europe, and one which needs to be fostered. At the same time, it serves as a clear indication that the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, are preserving basic democratic values. Only complete multilingualism will guarantee that every EU citizen can stand as a candidate for, and furthermore get elected to, the European Parliament, regardless of nationality and cultural and educational background.

Recently the subject of posts in Parliament has arisen once again. The current system is unwieldy, even if it does add to the multinational nature of the EU. Travel connections to and from Strasbourg are poor, because it is not an international air traffic hub. There should be a natural solution to this in the future with the various parties concerned working closely together. Perhaps a good compromise could also be reached with France, the country concerned.

Parliament’s policy on property has brought results to the extent that it can at present operate almost entirely in the buildings it owns. This has partly come about through a policy of economy with regard to operating expenditure. We must continue to ensure that economy is still the central objective in budgetary policy and financial administration in the future. This is also what the report before us now aims at, stressing as it does the need for efficiency, reallocation of appropriations and interinstitutional cooperation. That is why the report under discussion provides a good basis for discussion of the budget itself.

  Wohlin, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Mr President, I wish to confine my remarks to paragraph 28 of Mr Dombrovskis’ report, namely the paragraph applying to the costs that arise through Parliament being forced to work one week per month in Strasbourg, instead of concentrating its activities solely in Brussels. The direct costs of this are estimated at EUR 200 million per year. They do not include the loss of efficiency or the additional costs incurred by Members of the European Parliament. The total cost is probably closer to at least EUR 300 million per year.

Given that the EU’s objective in the Lisbon Process is to become the most competitive knowledge-based region of the world, the European Parliament’s unwillingness and inability to close down its activities in Strasbourg seems completely absurd. Voters cannot have respect for a political leadership that cannot even manage such an obvious changeover successfully, and one of a type that industry in general is always having to manage.

I do not think it sensible for the EU’s long-term financial perspectives to be wrapped up in an accumulated cost of EUR 2 billion for maintaining two places of work. These resources could instead be invested in technical research or something else that promotes growth. It is not acceptable to argue in favour of a larger budget as long as this anachronism is maintained. The long-term budget should therefore include this cost, and a decision should be taken to move operations to Brussels by no later than 2013.

  Roszkowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, I should also like to thank Mr Dombrovskis for his knowledgeable and lucid report on the guidelines for the 2006 budget procedure with regard to the sections on the EU institutions.

The report quite correctly highlights the fact that the 2004 enlargement round needs to be concluded efficiently in the coming financial year. In particular, the remaining positions for officials from the ten new Member States, most of which are for translators and interpreters, need to be filled. It is indeed the case that the Members from the new Member States have noticed significant shortfalls in these areas, which make it difficult for us to carry out our jobs. The rapporteur was also right to stress the importance of making preparations for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, which is due to take place in 2007.

We were glad to see that Mr Dombrovskis’ guidelines include a call to increase the efficiency of measures taken by EU institution by means of closer interinstitutional cooperation. By way of an aside, it would be worth adding to this list something that was mentioned by previous speakers, namely improved communication from and to Strasbourg, and an increase in the efficiency of measures taken by the individual services of the EU institutions. This could for example involve adherence to the principle whereby committee meetings are not held in Strasbourg, which might make it possible to avoid late-night sittings and sittings that do nothing to improve our mood or the efficiency of our actions.

I believe that greater attention should be paid to the fact that we are committed to providing reliable and neutral information, and it is particularly important that EU funding for information policy be spent accordingly. Despite the fact that the majority of Members of the House subscribe to this principle, this is not always the case in practice. In the report on the information campaign on the Constitutional Treaty, for example, it is clearly stated that the benefits citizens will derive from the Constitution should be explained. Where is the impartiality in that? Many thanks.

  Kozlík (NI). – (SK) Mr President, Commissioner, the draft budgetary process for the year 2006 and the budgetary corrections for the 2005 financial year are unquestionably reacting to the current situation and developments in the field of budgetary relations and are directed toward effectively upholding the functioning of the European Union. In this regard, I appreciate the good work of the rapporteurs. In this short space I would especially like to support Mr Ferber and add my voice to his and place a special emphasis on the effort to resolve the unresolved issue of the volume of translating and interpreting operations that create a bottleneck in the work of the European Parliament. In addition to adequate funding, this involves increasing the number of qualified employees in this area, specific measures within the framework of specialised training in the area of translations and interpreting, and I would like to emphasise this also to improving the management and logistics of these operations, which is a matter not directly related to budgetary procedures. All this is important for the European Parliament to fulfil its mandate as a multinational, multilingual institution that adopts essential European standards, rather than convey the impression of an agency for teaching English. I thank you for your attention, and I thank the translators for their good work.

  President. The joint debate is closed.

Voting will be on Thursday, except for the report by Mr Dombrovskis, which will be put to the vote on Wednesday at 12.30 p.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 10.45 p.m. and resumed at 10.50 p.m.)