Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 6 June 2007 - Brussels

22. Draft estimates of the European Parliament for 2008 (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on the report (A6-0202/2007) by Mr Itälä on behalf of the Committee on Budgets on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2008.

  Ville Itälä (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FI) Mr President, first I wish to thank all the coordinators, the shadow rapporteur and the representatives of different groups for the excellent levels of cooperation they have shown and the desire to find compromises. This was evident when we last voted on the budgetary guidelines in this plenary. We achieved a vast majority in all the important areas regarding general issues.

I would, however, like to start by saying that I hope the President will convey my remarks to Parliament’s Bureau regarding how this process is advancing. In my opinion, it has not gone the way we had hoped, because it so happened that when the Committee on Budgets was voting on the guidelines, Parliament’s Bureau was at the same time voting on the estimates, which are the subject for discussion here today. One might easily get the impression from this that the Bureau is not really bothered at all about what the Committee on Budgets does, because it was already one step ahead. Things cannot go on any longer in this way in the future. We really need to work more closely together and check what either body is doing.

As for the budget’s content, there is an extremely important basic principle here, already approved in connection with the guidelines, that the 2008 budget will remain at the 2007 level. To this, obviously, we have to add the figure for inflation and deduct from this the cost of any buildings projects, which will in any case be a cheaper option than renting in the long term.

Now it appears, however, that various projects are being sought in this area, constituting new items of expenditure. When the proposal mentions ‘justified needs’, that certainly does not mean that it is enough if a project is convenient and agreeable: it has to be really necessary for the business of this House and from the point of view of the taxpayer.

2008 is the last year this Parliament can show the taxpayer that we really can save and operate responsibly when we are drafting the budget. We can show that we will not embark on any new projects unless they are really necessary. Now that there is no enlargement and there are no new languages, these projects must be kept to a minimum. It is most important, however, that we are able to show the taxpayer that this is an accountable institution. The people of Europe and European businesses have to think carefully about what their money is going on and count every cent and euro. Parliament needs to act by way of example. It cannot act in any other way. Otherwise, credibility will fade and afterwards it will be a lot harder to get different things done and there will be far less confidence in Parliament. So now is the right time to gain trust and act responsibly.

One example of the sort of thing we need to put right and of the sort of project we can put money into if we need to is the adjustment concerning translations. We have to ensure that committees receive translations in sufficient time, and I support this proposal by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Hopefully, it will have the greatest possible support.

I would finally like to speak about information policy. I have prepared a proposal that Members of Parliament should be able to spend resources on inviting here small and local media, which do not have the funds themselves to send journalists here. This is a way of getting as close to the people as possible. I know from experience that these journalists want to talk to Members of Parliament and write articles about what Members think about issues and why they vote in a certain way. Accordingly, I have put forward such a proposal to consider using small and local media specifically, and I hope that there will be even greater consensus on this than what there is at present between the groups.

  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi, în numele grupului PPE-DE. – În primul rând, aş dori să-l felicit pe domnul Itälä pentru acest raport privind bugetul instituţiei noastre pe 2008.

Parlamentul ia astăzi decizii care afectează aproape 500 de milioane de cetăţeni. Codecizia a devenit regulă generală astfel că, până la 80% din legile adoptate în statele membre reprezintă acte votate în acest for. Responsabilitatea Parlamentului faţă de cetăţeni este mai mare ca niciodată. În consecinţă, toată munca desfăşurată în Parlament trebuie să fie la înălţimea acestei responsabilităţi.

Raportul subliniază că prima din priorităţile pentru 2008 este asigurarea de servicii eficiente pentru membri, în vederea unui proces legislativ eficient. Datorită recomandărilor acestui raport, vom avea traduceri în toate limbile din cele 20 de comisii ale Parlamentului. Mai mult, munca noastră va fi comunicată mai bine printr-un post de televiziune propriu şi va fi creat un program prin care jurnalişti din presa locală şi regională vor putea veni în Parlament pentru a duce informaţia europeană în comunităţile lor. Însă, cea mai importantă resursă a Parlamentului rămân oamenii care lucrează aici. În acest sens, am depus un amendament la raport care vizează tocmai personalul acestei instituţii şi mai exact numărul insuficient de angajaţi din statul pe care-l reprezint.

În urma aderării României şi Bulgariei, Secretariatul general al Parlamentului şi mai mult, practic a decis că un număr egal de agenţi permanenţi, şi anume 113 pentru fiecare din cele două ţări, ar fi necesar în serviciul instituţiei. Aceasta este o problemă pentru că, procentual, mai puţini tineri români pot obţine un post în Parlamentul European deoarece populaţia României este de aproape trei ori mai mare decât cea a Bulgariei. În acelaşi timp, europarlamentarii români de două ori mai mulţi decât cei bulgari, pot conta pe serviciile tehnice ale unui personal insuficient, fapt ce poate afecta eficienţa muncii noastre. O anume proporţionalitate a fost întotdeauna respectată în Instituţiile europene. Parlamentul a ţinut cont în trecut de considerente precum mărimea delegaţiei sau a populaţiei statelor membre, iar Oficiul de personal al Uniunii Europene, EPSO, a scos la concurs anul acesta un număr semnificativ mai mare de posturi pentru cetăţenii români, şi anume 440 faţă de 275. Stimaţi colegi, amendamentul meu doreşte corectarea acestei situaţii anormale, Parlamentul fiind singura instituţie în care această discriminare persistă contrar spiritului democratic ce-i este caracteristic.

  Vladimír Maňka, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SK) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and express my thanks for the excellent cooperation.

Last month the Committee on Budgets was addressed by marketing experts, and they agreed that WebTV is an excellent information tool for European Union citizens. The project must therefore be completed as soon as possible. In the committee we agreed that small local media should be more involved in the activities of the European Parliament. This will increase the awareness of European Union citizens about the work of the European Parliament.

We differ, however, on how these media should be engaged. One school of thought suggests that funds should be allocated to each Member so that they could invite journalists working for local media to the European Parliament. My political group is not prepared to support this approach to cooperation. Therefore, on behalf of MEPs for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, we are submitting an amendment proposing to adopt clear rules of the game governing communication with local and regional media. The idea is, on the one hand, to bring over to Brussels and Strasbourg as many local journalists as possible; and, on the other, to ensure that our procedures are clear and transparent.

Colleagues, you all undoubtedly wish for your work to be efficient. You want to be in a position to demonstrate to your voters that you use the available funds as efficiently as possible. However, it is frequently the case that crucial documents which Members receive for committee deliberations are only available in one or two languages. If, as a result, another extraordinary meeting of the committee needs to be convened, this negatively impacts the entire process and is inefficient. Ladies and gentlemen, in view of the above I trust that you will support this amendment designed to avoid such shortcomings and a pointless increase in costs.

  Anne E. Jensen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DA) Mr President, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the guiding principle that Mr Itälä has set for Parliament’s 2008 budget, namely that the budget should be kept at the 2007 level, allowance being made for inflation. It should not be higher than this without special reason. This is because 2008 is, of course, a year of consolidation after the enlargements and the extra appropriations that resulted from those enlargements. Now is the time to review matters and keep a constant eye on the opportunities to effectivise and prioritise our administration. There are, of course, new needs. There are things that can be done better. That applies to translation and interpreting, where it is not always possible for Members to get the service they need, and it applies to the needs for professional assistance for legislation work, which are also on the increase. In addition, the European Parliament should develop better communications tools, such as web TV, to make it easier to follow Parliament’s work.

As a guiding principle, the money for these improvements should be provided within the budgetary framework mentioned. The Bureau, however, has now decided to fix the preliminary draft estimates at EUR 1.49 billion, which corresponds to 20% of the EU’s administrative expenditure. This is, of course, the amount that we are setting as the upper limit for the budget. At the same time, reserves totalling EUR 55 million have been set aside for real estate policy and new political priorities, with EUR 10 million going to the election campaign for 2009 and a good EUR 14 million being set aside for unforeseen expenses. Parliament’s Presidency, however, does not provide any further details about what kind of projects they have in mind. In the ALDE Group, we have always supported the real estate policy. It is a good thing that Parliament has bought buildings at the most advantageous time, rather than continuing to rent. We also support the campaign in advance of the election, but we do not think it reasonable to put forward a budget containing such large and unexplained sums. The budget must reflect the actual needs and present a clear and transparent view of the economy over the next few years. There is thus a job for Mr Itälä to do, and I wish him luck with negotiating a more realistic budget. Parliament should take a lead and exhibit a level of budgetary discipline at least equal to what we expect and demand from the other institutions.

  Petre Popeangă, în numele grupului ITS. – Apreciez în mod deosebit raportul privind estimarea bugetului de venituri şi cheltuieli pentru exerciţiul financiar 2008 elaborat de Ville Itälä cu un înalt profesionalism, îl susţin şi o să recomand colegilor din grup votarea acestuia.

Separat de aceste consideraţii de ordin general, dar fără a le exclude, o să menţionez câteva aprecieri de natură particulară care nu fac decât să accentueze caracterul consistent al raportului.

Pornind de la ideea că bugetul pentru anul 2008 ar trebui să fie un buget pentru contribuabilul european, am apreciat preocuparea raportorului faţă de necesitatea ca acesta, contribuabilul, să fie informat cât mai în detaliu asupra tuturor activităţilor Parlamentului şi, în special, asupra viitoarelor alegeri europene. În acest sens, deosebit de oportună mi se pare propunerea raportorului privind elaborarea unui program special de informare, al cărui principal destinatar şi beneficiar să fie format, în special, prin structurile media locale de mai mică anvergură. De asemenea, consider că propunerea raportorului privind aprobarea unor surse financiare care să permită realizarea unor întâlniri directe cu ziariştii locali în Parlament este deosebit de valoroasă şi o susţin fără rezerve, deoarece apreciez că este unul dintre cele mai eficiente mijloace de a face cunoscute, direct şi în deplină transparenţă, toate activităţile acestuia.

Din lipsă de timp, o să mă limitez la a mai menţiona un singur aspect din raport şi anume acela al multilingvismului. Sunt întru totul de acord cu raportorul că acestui deosebit de important domeniu trebuie să i se acorde o atenţie particulară, având în vedere posibilele efecte datorate interpretării eronate a textelor ca urmare a unor traduceri mai puţin exacte a acestora. Tot în acest sens, consider că, în special reprezentanţilor noilor state membre trebuie să li se asigure un suport lingvistic corespunzător proporţional cu numărul acestora din diferitele structuri unionale.

  Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) The European Parliament certainly does not come cheap. The total cost – in excess of EUR 1.427 billion– is quite substantial, and it is imperative that all budget headings and allocations be clearly justified.

In this regard, however, the estimated revenues and expenses of the European Parliament in the 2008 budget year include a fair number of unknowns and are therefore something of a pig in a poke. In his report the rapporteur properly identified, I believe, some of the bottlenecks; by the same token, one can only agree that the extent of mopping-up transfers has been quite substantial.

In 2005 mopping-up transfers totalled EUR 124 million, while in 2006 they amounted to more than EUR 105 million. This is nearly 10% of all budget allocations. Parliament’s call for administrative bodies to estimate better the necessary allocations within expenditure groups is therefore certainly appropriate. I also warmly support the idea of developing a specific programme to raise awareness about the European Parliament’s activities by bringing small local media into the system. Such media are less gossip-prone and can properly inform citizens about decisions taken by European institutions, including the European Parliament.

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, for whose benefit are we actually holding this debate, and who is our addressee? I am disappointed to see us talking amongst ourselves here about things we discussed long ago. What right have we to stand here with no interlocutor listening to us? If the Commission took the liberty of discussing its budget in the absence of the competent Commissioner, we would be singing a different tune. I am personally deeply disappointed at the way in which both the parliamentary administration and the Bureau are dealing here with the Committee on Budgets and its members.

Let me move on to the core message regarding the budget in the European Parliament. What is the core message we have to convey to our electorates? It must be that we are fully committed to our mission of legislating for Europe as well and as efficiently as possible and at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. Better working conditions for Members of Parliament are essential to the accomplishment of that mission. They must be at the heart of our deliberations. Outward appearances are all very well, but the substance of our policies is still more important than their presentation and packaging. For strong substance, however, we need a proper research service to enable us to make better laws.

When preparing for European elections, we need not only an administrative campaign but also more scope for Members to employ staff. That requires a degree of flexibility. How has the European Parliament implemented the reformed and less bureaucratic Financial Regulation that has been in force since 1 January 2007? I get the impression that we have never had so much paperwork in this House. Nor has there ever been such a lack of clarity. The Statute for MEPs and the pension fund are still unfinished business. What I wish from the parliamentary administration is a satisfactory solution to these outstanding issues rather than high-flown plans for interparliamentary summits or museum buildings. I can hardly wait for the advent of Web TV to see whether it shows how few Members take part here in the work of Parliament.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) I should like to echo Mrs Gräßle’s words, and say to you, Mr President, that we cannot go back to having a debate on Parliament’s budget if we do not have anyone representing Parliament’s structure in the Chamber to hear what we say. This is an absolutely unforgivable error, of which I hope there will be no repetition.

I should also like to say that I am concerned at the way in which the translation sector is being managed. I cannot understand how it is that people who have worked normally for 10 or 12 years can be told that they will no longer have work, simply because they did not receive the draft contract they usually receive every December. This is no way to treat people and it contravenes all of the principles of social Europe. I should like to say that this kind of procedure is not acceptable and I call on you, Mr President, kindly to pass on this message to the Secretary-General.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I wish to thank our fellow Member for her report with regard to which, however, I am completely in agreement with Anne Jensen in her observations.

I should like to mention, this evening, just one of the fundamental points, to my mind, that this report highlights. It relates to information policy, which makes it possible to communicate effectively with the half billion citizens that together we now comprise. In this respect, I will say in my turn that I support one hundred per cent the grant provided to encourage the new policy on local media. Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, we need to stimulate a new kind of European public debate which transcends national borders and is taken up throughout Europe, and for that we must put into effect three major projects.

Firstly, the European Parliament’s Internet television channel must rapidly become a reality which will bring us closer to our fellow citizens and which will create more transparency in our work. Secondly, we have to use all the new means of communication. For example, tomorrow I am organising a discussion forum on the Internet from Brussels with secondary school pupils from Dijon within the framework of a Franco-German project. Thirdly, on a cautionary note, I should like to say that the establishment of a visitor centre in Brussels must not cover up the lack of facilities for groups of visitors during the plenary sittings at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and we need to think about that.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, regret that such scant attention is being paid to what is on the table here, but presumably for different reasons from most of you. You should actually rejoice that so few people are being made aware of what is being served up here once again. I am convinced that there is nowhere else in the world where people are so highly rewarded for such scant output as here in the European Parliament, whether they be Members or officials.

If you look more closely at the wasteful items, you will see a 60% growth in unforeseen expenditure and a cost explosion under the heading of fitting-out work on buildings from 17 million to 27 million, chiefly for architects’ and engineers’ fees. I am convinced that the rapporteur, who just nodded to me, is trying in good faith to keep the lid on this expenditure, but the large political groups and the majority in this House simply will not let him.

I do not know where you come from, nor do I know whether I shall succeed one day in rekindling the sentiments with which you perhaps first entered politics, that idealism which I would never question in anyone. But what are we doing here with one and a half billion? Every one of us surely knows that we would get by on half that amount. There is no desire to save money, however, but only to waste it. Then we have Mrs Gräßle saying that there should be more staff. The one who is probably the only severe critic of such profligacy here is not even given a single assistant! I tell you, if the public really knew what was going on here, they would not describe this as a democratic parliament but as a den of despotism and wastage.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do believe that this parliamentary debate serves a very useful purpose. The fact is that those who bear responsibility are sitting here. I think it is important to be master in one’s own house, and that means having proper working conditions.

When I consider that the meeting documents we are given here in the House have to be taken into the Chamber in paper form, I must conclude that our working methods are not up to date. It really goes without saying that the necessary computer equipment and Internet access should be available to us here at our workplaces so that we can perform our work properly and thoroughly here in the Chamber too.

Other facilities are lacking in the House, such as suitable consultation rooms. When we receive groups of our constituents these days and try to hold proper discussions with them, we do not really have the sort of premises we need to accommodate seven, eight, nine or ten people. One of our tasks here is to make the requisite improvements to our own working conditions.

It would also be useful if the public could see how individual Members of this House operate here. It would do no harm if we had a Web-TV transmission now and the next day were given the viewing figures for the various debates we had held. It would emerge very clearly that the citizens of Europe certainly do take an interest in what happens here in Parliament.

For the same reason it is also important to appeal to a wider range of journalists. I rate our Brussels correspondents very highly, but a great deal more must be done, including contributions to education and training programmes for journalists in Europe, to nurture a more objective understanding and assessment of the European Union.

  Szabolcs Fazakas (PSE). – (HU) Recently the European Parliament has, to the great delight of us all, been fulfilling an increasingly significant role in cooperation among the European institutions and, what is more, it has been gaining ever greater recognition in the eyes of European public opinion. This is due not only to our politically and professionally well-founded legislative work, but primarily to our successful information policy.

In order, however, for our information policy, which in addition to web TV includes hosting visitors groups, holding exhibitions and operating information offices in the Member States, to have its desired result, we must back these policies with appropriate sources, that is to say, budgetary resources.

On the one hand as the quaestor responsible for this portfolio, and on the other hand as a member of the Committee on Budgets, I hope that the European Parliament will be able to take a unified position on this question of financing, thereby ensuring the successful realisation of this policy, which is of importance not only for the European Parliament but for European popular opinion.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work. I hope Members heard his first comment, which expressed his annoyance with the Bureau for being one step ahead of us. I think that has been noted. We might like them to be ahead in other cases where they are not, but on this they should not be one step ahead of Parliament.

I want specifically to talk about information policy, because, to coin a phrase, 'I was that soldier'. In a past life, I was one of those journalists brought to Parliament. We would do well to look at how things have not worked in the past to ensure that we do not spend money making the same mistakes. I agree with bringing local journalists over, but all news is local, as is all politics, and Members of this Parliament have a huge amount of work to do to translate those big documents that have been presented into real stories that affect real people. If we are not able to do that, we should not bring journalists to Brussels. However, we should try and we should do that next year.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Dat fiind faptul că România şi Bulgaria sunt cele mai noi membre ale Uniunii Europene, consider că este important ca posturile aferente acestor ţări să fie ocupate prin concurs cât mai curând şi, de asemenea, că este necesar să existe un buget pentru informarea jurnaliştilor specializaţi din mass-media naţională cu privire la rolul si atribuţiile Parlamentului European.

Un rol important îl au birourile de informare ale Parlamentului, care trebuie să aibă resursele financiare necesare pentru a prezenta şi promova Parlamentul European la nivel naţional. Parlamentul European în 2008 trebuie să asigure o mai bună legiferare şi comunicare către public a beneficiilor aduse de politica comunitară. Din păcate, pentru mulţi cetăţeni ai statelor membre, Bruxelles înseamnă mai multă birocraţie, iar acţiunile în beneficiul cetăţenilor sunt mai puţin cunoscute. Avem datoria să schimbăm această percepţie. Bugetul Parlamentului European pentru 2008 trebuie să asigure servicii de traducere pentru toate întâlnirile oficiale, în toate limbile naţionale ale participanţilor, precum şi resursele necesare pentru o politică de informare şi comunicare eficientă - mă refer în special la modernizarea sistemelor informatice, la finanţarea programului Web TV şi a centrului audio-vizual. Felicit raportorul.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.