Opening of international negotiations in view of adopting an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic (debate)
President
The next item is the Council and the Commission statements on the opening of international negotiations in view of adopting an international Treaty for the protection of the Arctic.
Alexandr Vondra
President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, as we all know and can read every day, the Arctic is increasing in importance, and it deserves greater attention from the European Union as well.
This was brought out in the resolution Parliament adopted in October. I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to address this issue, which I know is of particular concern for you.
Only three EU Member States have territories within the Arctic region. Nevertheless, the effects of climate change and of human activities in the Arctic region extend far beyond the Arctic itself. What happens in the Arctic has significant implications for the EU as a whole. So far, issues with an Arctic dimension have tended to be addressed by the Union within the context of sectoral policies such as the maritime policy or the fight against climate change. Although cooperation within the framework of the new northern dimension covers European Arctic areas, the Union has not developed a broad Arctic policy bringing together all the relevant individual policy areas.
This is now changing. In March last year, High Representative Solana and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner submitted to the European Council a joint report on climate change and international security. This report highlighted the new strategic interest in the Arctic region. It drew attention to the far-reaching implications of environmental change for the Arctic and it recognised that these could have consequences for international stability and for European security interests.
The report called for the development of a specific EU Arctic policy based on the growing geostrategic importance of the region and taking into account issues such as access to natural resources and the possible opening-up of new trade routes.
The Commission subsequently presented a communication on the EU and the Arctic region last November. This took up the various strategic challenges of the region and proposed concrete actions in three main areas: the protection and preservation of the Arctic in cooperation with the population; the sustainable use of resources; and strengthening multilateral governance of the Arctic. This last point was covered in last October's resolution.
In its communication, the Commission specifically proposed, as one of its policy objectives, that the EU should work to uphold the further development of a cooperative Arctic governance system based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and advocated the full implementation of all existing obligations, rather than proposing new legal instruments. This is one of the key elements in the communication.
In its conclusion last December, the Council gave a clear welcome to the communication and considered that it constituted the first layer of a future EU Arctic policy.
The Council agreed with the Commission that the EU should aim to preserve the Arctic in cooperation with its population and that it should address Arctic challenges in a systematic and coordinated manner. It considered that the goals of the EU could only be achieved in close cooperation with all Arctic partner countries, territories and communities, and also noted the intergovernmental cooperation in the region.
It also welcomed the Commission's intention to apply for permanent observer status to represent the European Community on the Arctic Council. The Council specifically stressed the importance of multilateral cooperation in conformity with the relevant international conventions and highlighted, in particular, the UNCLOS.
In line with the Commission communication, it did not express any support for the specific idea of an international treaty.
On the basis of this position, the Council is now taking forward work on the details of the proposal for action set out in the Commission communication. I hope it is clear from what I have said today that the Council is taking this issue very seriously.
We fully recognise the growing strategic importance of the Arctic region. We agree that the Europeam Union should have a comprehensive and coherent policy. The Council will certainly keep this Parliament fully informed about further developments and is grateful for your continuing interest in this subject.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament for its interest in the Arctic and also say how much we appreciated your resolution on Arctic governance last October. It gave political impetus to the Commission's own work on the communication that has already been mentioned, 'The EU and the Arctic region', which was adopted last November.
Now, why is this so important? We share your concern that the Arctic region deserves international attention as never ever before. Scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring much faster in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. In the past six years alone, the ice cap has lost up to half its thickness near the North Pole and may have passed a tipping point. That is a clear warning sign we would be foolish to ignore. The radical transformation of the Arctic is having an impact on its people, its landscape and its wildlife - on land and at sea.
Therefore, now is the time to act. That is why we adopted the communication, which is the first step towards an EU policy for the Arctic, laying the foundations for a more comprehensive approach. The communication focuses on three broad goals: protecting and preserving the Arctic, in full cooperation with its inhabitants; promoting the sustainable use of resources; and beefing up multilateral governance.
The proposals in the communication are the outcome of a very thorough analysis made by the Commission. This involved consultations with all main Arctic stakeholders, including both EU and non-EU Arctic states. This was all the more necessary because many EU activities and key developments of global scope, such as the integrated maritime policy or climate change, have an effect on the Arctic.
So, based on these discussions and in light of the motion for a resolution tabled for discussion today, let me stress that the Arctic region differs from the Antarctic in a number of key aspects. Unlike the Antarctic, which is a vast, uninhabited continent surrounded by an ocean, the Arctic is a maritime space, surrounded by inhabited land belonging to sovereign countries.
So the idea of establishing a binding legal regime specifically designed for the Arctic is, unfortunately, difficult, because none of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states - Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia and the United States - is in favour of such a regime. I therefore fear that such a proposal would at this stage not only be ineffective but could prove to be detrimental to the EU's role and credibility in overall Arctic cooperation. Rather than expending efforts on that cause, the EU's interests and objectives are better served by building greater multilateral cooperation and making better use of the existing legal instruments.
Through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other general conventions, there is already an extensive international legal framework in place. The UNCLOS is also the basis for settling disputes, including maritime delimitation. We want to see these conventions fully implemented and, very importantly, adapted to the Arctic specificities. For example, we propose a regulatory framework for sustainable fisheries management where areas and species are not yet covered by other instruments.
Secondly, we will work closely with the International Maritime Organisation, developing and enforcing solid international standards for safer Arctic navigation, respecting human safety and environmental sustainability. This means either extending existing legislation or adopting new legislation.
Thirdly, we will also defend the internationally recognised principles of freedom of navigation and the right of innocent passage. Coastal states should avoid discriminatory steps concerning navigational rules. Any measures will have to be applied in full compliance with the International Law of the Sea.
Fourthly, it is not realistic to propose an international moratorium on the extraction of Arctic resources. The bulk of the estimated reserves of minerals, oil and gas are either on the sovereign territory of the Arctic states or in their exclusive economic zones, and some of them have far-reaching plans for further exploration activities. However, we insist that the extraction and use of Arctic resources must always adhere to the highest possible standards for the environment and sustainability.
We share Parliament's concerns about the urgency of action in this region, and our communication puts forward a set of coherent and specific proposals. Based on this, we look forward to continued cooperation with you as we develop an EU Arctic policy.
Let us never lose sight of our common goal, and let us work together with the Arctic states and the international community to find the best and most effective way of preserving and protecting the Arctic for future generations.
Anders Wijkman
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I have participated in a number of meetings in the Arctic region focusing very much on climate change.
Normally the first day in such meetings is devoted to the serious effects for the region, its wildlife, the livelihood of its people, and so on, because of global warming. The second day is very often devoted to opportunities in terms of geological exploitation. Something of a contradiction. I would submit that rapid exploitation of geological resources would, of course, entail very serious risks.
I agree that you cannot draw an exact parallel between the Arctic and the Antarctic - I agree with the Commissioner there. At the same time, since we do not have a careful, sustainable environment framework in place for the kind of activities that are now being explored by the nations in this region, I think this resolution sends a very important signal: be careful. The fact that all political groups are behind it, I think, is significant.
We list three alternative ways forward: one, an international treaty, with, of course, special provisions for this region compared to the Antarctic; two, a moratorium, pending new scientific research and a better understanding of the region and its vulnerability or sensitivity, but also pending the results of many energy alternatives that are now developing very progressively. Maybe in the future we will not need those fossil reserves at all.
So I think that, even if colleagues in this Parliament may differ on the margin about the most responsible way forward, I think it is very significant that we are all behind this resolution. I want to stress that we want to go beyond just enhanced multilateral cooperation and dialogue; we want to ensure that the safety of the environment and the livelihoods of the people are protected.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, I would like to quickly remind you about what is happening in the Arctic so that everyone understands what is at stake in this debate. At the North Pole global warming is sharpening appetites for control of the area's natural wealth. The melting of the ice will make it easier, as you have said, to exploit the vast oil and gas reserves and to open up a navigable waterway between the East and the West, which will save thousands of kilometres for cargo ships but will unfortunately prove disastrous for the environment.
Claims to sovereignty over the area by the five border countries - Canada, Denmark, Russia, the United States and Norway - leads to obvious tensions. The Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs announced this week that Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic's lands and waters was long-standing, well-established and based on historic title. He said that the Canadian Government would also promise increased political monitoring and a greater military presence in Canadian Arctic waters.
These words echo the Kremlin's announcement of its intention to deploy military forces in the Arctic in order to protect its interests. Until now, regulation of this strategic area has come from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed by 150 countries on 10 December 1982. It lays down that coastal states exercise control over an area up to 200 miles from their coasts and have economic rights over the resources of the seabeds, but this area can be extended if the states can prove that the continental shelves extend beyond 200 miles. They have until May 2009 - and that is very close - to put a request of this kind to the UN.
Russia took the initiative in 2001, hence the current unrest. As far as my group, and Mr Rocard, who initiated this debate in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and who has recently been appointed ambassador for the Arctic, are concerned, given the implications for energy, the environment and military security, the Convention on the Law of the Sea is not adequate for the Arctic. The North Pole is a global asset that must be protected by a binding charter, in which the European Union must play a leading role. We want a North Pole that is clean and above all without troops.
Diana Wallis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, this debate clearly follows on from our resolution last October on Arctic governance. Our group has no problem in supporting the wish for an Arctic treaty, but more in the light of a quest for a new mode of governance. The treaty is perhaps more symbolic, but what we do insist upon is working with - and respecting - the nations and, more particularly, the peoples of the Arctic. It is people, as you have already said, that distinguish the Arctic from the Antarctic.
There are already international structures - the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rules, the International Law of the Sea - but there is a need for something more tailored and more specific. We should build on the work of the Arctic Council. Commissioner, you should join it as soon as possible and you should help build its political capacity. At all costs, we have to avoid a retreat into old-style sovereignty, territorial claims and intergovernmentalism. A new style of governance is needed for this fragile area of our globe in which every citizen of the world feels they have an interest or a stake.
We also have to prove our credentials for Arctic involvement, and our record as Europeans is not good. Our sailors and traders devastated the Arctic environment in the 17th and 18th centuries with the so-called 'rape of Spitsbergen'. It is our industrial emissions that have led directly to acute climate change in the region, and we now threaten to impose our values and our traditions on the peoples of the Arctic at this very sensitive moment. We have to listen to them and work with them because, quite frankly, their record of protecting their environment is better than ours. Our group will not therefore support the 50-year moratorium.
Godfrey Bloom
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I live on a lovely island - a beautiful island - which has been systematically destroyed by the European Union over the last 15 years. I have seen the European Union Landfill Directive, which has had industrial waste - laughingly called 'compost' - thrown upon the land. I have seen hundreds of thousands of fish dumped in the North Sea. Near my own village, I have seen what used to be wonderful fields of wheat and barley and dairy cattle being turned over to things like miscanthus and all sorts of other biofuels, wrecking our environment and pushing up the cost of food.
The European Union wants us to meet our objectives of renewable energy. Thirty-five thousand wind turbines the size of jumbo jets, the biggest desecration of my beautiful island since the Industrial Revolution. And now you are looking for a remit over one of the last wildernesses in the world, the Arctic. Well, Mr President, colleagues, let me tell you that I agree with Mrs Wallis. Your record is appalling and the answer has got to be, for goodness' sake, keep your nose out of this.
Avril Doyle
Mr President, yes, the Commissioner is right. The Arctic is quite different in many ways from the Antarctic, and it was only a few months ago, on 8 October 2008, that I spoke to this House on this very topic.
The Arctic, as I said then, plays an increasingly important geostrategic role in our world, and over the past decade several critical issues have emerged in this region. We are now faced with the opening of hitherto closed seaways, a direct result of climate change. This comes as no surprise, since the Arctic is warming at a much faster rate, with an increase of two degrees in the last hundred years, compared to an average of just 0.6 degrees in the rest of the world.
This highly vulnerable ecosystem is coming under increasing pressure from resource-hungry nations which wish to exploit its potential without having due regard to its fundamental importance as a stabilising force in the world's climate.
I agree with Mrs Wallis's point that a call for a 50-year moratorium on any exploitation is neither practical nor reasonable, but I think a limited moratorium on new exploitation - pending fresh scientific studies - is something all civilised nations could perhaps agree to.
Apart from this, the EU counts amongst its Member States no less than three Arctic nations along with two other EEA neighbours, accounting for more than half the numeric membership of the Arctic Council. This is reason enough for us to be able to assert ourselves, in the best sense of that word, on the global stage on this issue.
The Arctic is critical for global climate, and for this reason alone we must be part of a new style of governance for this beautiful and - as the previous speaker said - one of the last wildernesses of our world.
Martí Grau i Segú
(ES) The Arctic region is one of the most fragile on our planet. The consequences of unrestricted exploitation of its natural resources would be catastrophic, not only for the surrounding area and the indigenous population, but for the world as a whole.
The thawing of large areas has made those risks a reality, creating the need for a new global regulation to protect the Arctic, similar to the existing one for the Antarctic, while bearing in mind the differences that have already been highlighted in the debate.
We need an international treaty between all parties involved, which no doubt includes the European Union, in order to protect the unique Arctic environment, to ensure the full sustainability of all kinds of human activity and to implement multilateral regulation of shipping in new sea lanes that become accessible.
In the years since it was created, the Arctic Council has been a model of cooperation in managing shared problems. In these times of difficulty or uncertainty, we should take that spirit and understanding to a higher level so as to avoid neighbouring States or other international players becoming involved in geostrategic arguments and forgetting what should be our common goal: preserving a great shared heritage.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
Mr President, today we are discussing the protection of the Arctic, which is a very hot topic - not only in the European Union.
Firstly, because the Arctic region is thought to contain huge energy resources - as much as 20% of the world's undiscovered technically recoverable reserves - the temptation to exploit these resources is irresistible. Secondly, the Arctic environment is exceptionally fragile. The whole of the international community stands to be affected by many of the changes that are already taking place. Thirdly, territorial disputes hang over the Arctic. We risk triggering major conflicts between countries wanting to protect - including by military means - what countries in the region consider their national interests.
It is time for the European Parliament to make its position clear, as it has taken almost no part in this debate until now, with the exception of our resolution, passed in October last year, calling for an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic. It is important to mention that EU Member States and the EEA associated countries comprise more than 50% of the membership of the Arctic Council. As it is for the United States, the Arctic should be a strategic priority for the European Union.
I fully support our draft proposal that the Commission and the Council should work towards establishing a moratorium on the exploitation of the geological resources in the Arctic for a period of 50 years, pending fresh scientific studies. We, the European Parliament, should call on the Commission to initiate negotiations with the Russian authorities on a number of important issues which are listed in our draft resolution. It is time to include the Arctic on the agenda for the forthcoming EU-Russia Summit.
Christian Rovsing
(DA) Mr President, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark with significant responsibility under Home Rule. The Arctic is not uninhabitable. It is not an unregulated landmass like the Antarctic. On the contrary, the landmasses are part of the Arctic countries and four million people already live there, a third of these being indigenous people. These people and their nations have a legitimate requirement to exploit the resources and the opportunities found in the area. It is only the sea in the middle that has international status and in this regard the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) forms the relevant legal basis. This approach was also confirmed by the Arctic coastal states in the 2008 Ilulissat Declaration. In addition to UNCLOS, there are a large number of other relevant international and regional instruments. There is scarcely any need for more governance. At most there is a need to adapt the instruments already in place. Denmark has submitted a proposal to the Arctic Council to examine the existing agreements with a view to updating them. This will and should happen in cooperation with the Arctic states and the Arctic peoples.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, the Antarctic Treaty serves as a shining global example that territorial claims by littoral states can be set aside in the interests of peaceful cooperation and scientific research. As the world confronts the issue of global warming impacting on the melting of the two caps and causing rising sea levels, and as frozen Arctic maritime passages re-open to navigation, it is important that an analogous arrangement be found for the frozen - or should I say thawing - North of the Arctic. The scramble for sovereign claims and Arctic mineral resources, as evidenced by the melodramatic planting of the Russian flag on the sea bed, must be rejected.
The EU should try and convince the five Arctic littoral states - the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark - of the wisdom of such an approach.
Johannes Lebech
(DA) Mr President, as a Dane involved in tabling this motion for a resolution together with Mrs Wallis in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I am not necessarily very popular. However, I think that the main approach taken by the resolution is a good one. It is good that the EU is focussing on the Arctic region. It is also good for the small nations of Denmark and Norway that the EU is involved in this matter, so that we do not only need to play with the big boys of the area, the US and Russia.
However, I would like to say that I am unable to vote in favour of the moratorium that has now been included in the resolution. Firstly, it is quite unrealistic. Russia and the US will not accept it under any circumstances. In addition, however, I also think that we need, as Mr Rovsing said, to take account of the people who live in the region and the people of Greenland naturally expect, and naturally have the right, to be able to utilise the natural resources on their territory, just as every other nation can on its territory.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would simply like to remind you that it was the polar bears on the ice floes who showed us how much chemical pollution was affecting the whole of the world. DDT was found in their fat, and we all know very well that that is not a substance that is used on the ice floes.
In any case, I would like to thank the Commission for the proposal it made after the discussion we had here in Parliament, because it is really urgent, on account of climate change, to protect the only area that is sheltered from human predation. We must remember that.
There is, of course - and here I am taking up what Mrs De Keyser said - political urgency, because, after all, we are forced to do something for the Arctic. Indeed, some of the owners of part of this continent have designs on it. We know very well that Russia, which we spoke about recently, wants to establish its frontiers beyond its maritime area and extend them over the continental shelf. It is therefore an urgent matter for us, because Russia also wants to place its flags there and install military units, just as Canada does.
What is missing from your proposal, perhaps, is what we asked for last time, that is, an international treaty for the protection of the Arctic, which will allow us to ensure its protection once and for all.
Alojz Peterle
(SL) We are witnessing both natural and human crises taking place in the Arctic. Our efforts should be directed towards ensuring that they are not followed by a political crisis or a crisis of any other sort. The call for a responsible approach towards the Arctic is an SOS and an issue of global governance. I welcome, in particular, any effort which respects the indigenous people of this region.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, who has cooperated really very closely with the European Parliament and is certainly the hardest-working Commissioner in this field: I really do appreciate it. She was also present at our meeting with the European Economic Area last week: after all, the Nordic dimension is particularly important here, and Diana Wallis, too, has repeatedly stressed that Europe bears a very particular responsibility in this connection.
I think that, particularly in a financial and energy crisis, it is incumbent on us to take an even greater interest in this field and also to respond to the wishes and needs of the population in this regard, because, ultimately, man and nature are not in opposition, but should complement one another. From this point of view, I think we can point to some pleasing successes, particularly in energy policy, and perhaps we will be able to intensify cooperation in this field.
Alexandr Vondra
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I welcome this timely debate. As a result of the quest for resources and climate change, the Arctic region is on the brink of a profound change. It is not only the region itself which is likely to be affected but, as many here today have recognised, also the EU as a whole. Against the background of these developments it is important that the EU approaches the Arctic in a comprehensive and strategic manner covering a whole range of issues, such as environment, transport, biodiversity, climate change, maritime affairs, energy and research, as well as protection of the livelihood of the indigenous peoples.
I consider that the Council is now taking this issue very seriously. It broadly supports the suggestions set out in the Commission's communication. This should constitute the basis for an Arctic policy, which needs to be developed in a comprehensive manner. To those who are talking about the new treaty, there is no Council position at the moment because the Council is only now in the process of examining the Commission proposals. I would just like to recall the Council's conclusions from December. In the conclusion we say that the objectives of the EU could only be achieved in close cooperation with the Arctic countries, and the EU should enforce its participation in conformity with the current international conventions.
As I mentioned earlier, the Commission proposals are now being studied in much more detail. They will, I believe, facilitate agreement on an overarching response to the many varied challenges which we face in the Arctic region. I welcome the interest of this Parliament and I am ready to come back to you to report once the Council has reached a position.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as I underlined at the beginning of this important debate, the European Union has to play an increasing role in protecting the Arctic environment, in promoting sustainable exploitation of natural resources and in enhancing Arctic multilateral governance. We are committed to the preservation of the Arctic and, at the same time, our aim is to contribute to a cooperative system that will guarantee sustainability, as well as free and equitable access. In order to succeed in these important endeavours, we have to cooperate closely with all the Arctic states and Arctic stakeholders, as I have said.
In this regard, the Commission proposes to promote the full implementation and elaboration of existing obligations, rather than proposing new legal instruments in order to enhance security and stability. Strict environmental management and sustainable use of resources, as well as open and equitable access. At the same time, the EU has already highlighted that, for areas beyond national jurisdiction, the provisions on environmental protection under this Convention remain rather general, and we will continue to work within the United Nations towards the further development of some of the frameworks, adapting them to new conditions or Arctic specificities. For example, a new UNCLOS implementation agreement on marine biodiversity beyond the areas of national jurisdiction could take the Arctic into account, and we have also submitted our application to the Norwegian chair of the Arctic Council. The acceptance of the Commission's application requires the unanimous decision of all the members of the Arctic Council. This decision, which is due on 29 April - i.e. very soon - might be negatively affected by an initiative that perhaps proposes an Arctic Treaty, so we should be careful about that.
Finally, let me say that the Arctic coastal states have a clear preference for the UNCLOS as a basis. The European Union has to take this into account when we want to develop even stronger cooperation for the benefit of the Arctic, its inhabitants and its wildlife. In this context, we should not weaken the existing frameworks for cooperation as this would not really serve our objectives and interests. Nor would it correspond to the spirit of your own draft resolution.
In conclusion, I consider that the conditions are not yet right for an international treaty on the Arctic, and that we should rather focus our efforts on ensuring the effective application of the existing legal frameworks, thus filling the gaps that might exist, and adapting the rules to the specificities of the Arctic. This seems much more feasible.
President
I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 2 April 2009.


4. Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (
- Before the vote:
Joseph Daul
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), I propose that the House refer Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report back to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in accordance with Rules 63 and 175 of the Rules of Procedure. We heard the Council and the Commission yesterday. Both asked that Parliament grant them extra time, so that they can answer the requests that we personally formulated on the interim agreement.
Parliament is right to call the Council and the Commission and the United States to account. It is our responsibility - even more so with the Treaty of Lisbon - and we must assume it. Parliament is right to put personal safety and privacy on the same footing, because there cannot be one without the other. By asking you to postpone the vote slightly, the PPE Group is not questioning Parliament's demands or authority. It is asking for the ball to be put back into the Commission's, the Council's and the US's court for a very short period of time.
In fact, my group proposes that Parliament limit the time granted to the Council by demanding that the required information be supplied to us next month, not in May as requested by the Council. That would enable us to reach a definitive opinion in March. That is not unrealistic, especially as we learned yesterday evening that Commissioner Malmström was undertaking to propose a new negotiating mandate for the final agreement next week or by the next mini-session in Brussels, which is to say in 10 days' time. A new mandate in February and Parliament's vote in March, that is what we are proposing.
Timothy Kirkhope
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like to support the EPP's proposal for postponement on the vote. I believe that this is a sensible and rational course of action; the House may have new powers but we must exercise them in a measured and responsible way. The Council has tried to appease Parliament, perhaps not sufficiently yet, but they have also apologised for their mistakes during this process. So I think we should now take some time to cooperate and work together on moving forwards and towards a new long-term agreement as well. I believe it is in the best interests of the House's reputation, the future of our international agreements and the security of Europe that we now give ourselves this time.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert
rapporteur. - Mr President, my recommendation is to vote against postponement as conditions for postponement have not been met by the Council. This House cannot keep falling for fake promises; the ball was in the Council's court but it failed to act appropriately and effectively. The Council has known about this problem for over two years and has done nothing in that time to deal with it. By withholding our consent on the interim agreement the security of European citizens is not being compromised. Targeted transatlantic data exchange will remain possible; the rule of law is crucially important though currently our laws are being broken and under this agreement with its provisional application they would continue to be broken. Parliament should not be complicit in this.
Finally, the last point, if the US Administration would propose to US Congress something equivalent to this to transfer in bulk bank data of American citizens to a foreign power we all know what the US Congress would say - don't we?
(Applause from the Left)
Cecilia Malmström
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission would support a postponement of the vote. It will give the new Commission a chance to create a new momentum on this difficult dossier and it would also give the European Parliament more time to see how we intend to process this further.
The Commission is committed to a very ambitious timetable. I would like to confirm what Mr Daul said - that the Commission will adopt the mandate for a new long-term agreement on 24 February if you agree to postpone the vote. I am ready to come to you personally the same day to present the mandate. The Council will get it the day after in Brussels in order to consider it. I am sure that the Spanish Presidency will do everything they can to agree to the mandate as soon as possible. The Commission will then immediately launch negotiations with the US to try to conclude them as soon as possible.
We will, within those powers, keep the European Parliament fully informed at all stages of the process. My goal is to achieve a new agreement with very ambitious safeguards for privacy and data protection. I think we can build trust on both sides of the Atlantic for tracking financing, but of course this has to be done while fully assuring the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights.
Martin Schulz
(DE) Mr President, I have a supplementary question for the Commission, that is, Mrs Malmström: Am I correct in my understanding, Mrs Malmström, that, in your capacity as Commissioner, you support the postponement of the vote of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)? May I ask why you did not support these requests during your six-month stint as the Swedish Presidency's Europe Minister? If you had, we would not have had to discuss the postponement today.
President
Would you like to answer, very briefly?
(The Commissioner declined to do so.)
(Parliament rejected the request to refer back to committee the report)


Amending budget no 1/2010: Section I - Parliament - Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year 2011 - Section I - Parliament (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on:
the report by Mr Maňka, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on Draft Amending budget no 1/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section I - European Parliament, and
the report by Mrs Trüpel, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of Parliament for the financial year 2011.
Vladimír Maňka
Many procedures are now more direct and more transparent, due to the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force. Powers are more clearly defined. The European Parliament has greater power, and the European Union has boosted its standing both externally and internally. For the first time in the history of democracy, the citizens of a number of countries have the right to influence events on a supranational level.
In view of the size and diversity of Europe, we must take care that all citizens, including those who are not very wealthy and do not belong to large established organisations, have recourse to all democratic means. Utilisation of these democratic means must not be dependent on the possession of large financial resources.
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has a specific financial impact on some European institutions. During the budget procedure for 2010, it was agreed that we would preferentially use an available reserve in Heading 5 for financing additional costs arising directly from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Today, therefore, after adopting the original budget for 2010, we are addressing the corresponding additional expenditure via an amending budget. Following the submission of applications for additional resources, we took every effort to locate reserves and distribute existing resources as far as possible.
The Treaty of Lisbon has a direct or indirect effect on all of the European Parliament's services.
The amending budget of the European Parliament, which we are debating today, will secure the additional financial and human resources to enable Parliament to fulfil its new codecision-making role on an equal footing to that of the Council.
The net financial impact of the amending budget of the European Parliament is lower than the original demand for budgetary resources. In the conciliation proceedings with the Presidency of the European Parliament, we managed to find EUR 4 million. There was a further reduction in demand for resources as a result of the timing, as we approved the budget a month later than we originally expected.
Most companies and institutions, not only in Europe but throughout the world, are taking advantage of the global economic crisis to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. This is the challenge for us, the European Parliament, just as it is for other European institutions.
The Secretary-General of the European Parliament now has further savings and efficiency improvements at his disposal, and not just for this year. The detailed functional audit at the INLO Directorate-General and in the security service unit, which we agreed on when approving the budget in December, may bring significant and sustainable savings for future budget periods as well.
Helga Trüpel
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament's budget for 2011 is the first real budget for our Chamber since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. That means that Parliament has more competences, we have more duties, we have more responsibility, we have more legislative duties - in other words, we need more working capacity and that means we need a bigger budget.
At the same time - and this is very important to me - we have to be aware that we are in the midst of the economic and financial crisis and the euro stability crisis. In Germany the debt cutbacks will kick in in 2011, high levels of cutbacks are needed in Greece and in all heavily indebted public budgets. We thus need to find a very responsible position for how we approach the increases in Parliament's budget in these difficult economic times. As rapporteur for the 2011 budget, I will reflect the majority position, although I will also set out my own green position.
Twenty per cent for Parliament's budget, based on the administrative budget, was an upper limit that was laid down between the institutions in 1988. The majority in the Committee on Budgets believe, however, that that cannot apply to the same degree to 2011, as the reality has changed. We have enlargement, we have more competences and we have more duties, so the 20% figure must not necessarily be regarded as fixed. Despite that, it has become clear that we are aiming to stick to the area around 20% for reasons of self-discipline and responsibility.
The Bureau has proposed a figure of 20.46% - in other words, EUR 39 million above the figure for 2010. After some debate - and taking account of the conflict of aims - we have now agreed that we will only spend 20.32% - in other words, an additional EUR 20 million. There is consensus that we need more staff for enlargement, more staff for the library, IT and studies, that we need to give clearer priority to environmental protection here in Parliament and that it would be very positive for there to be more bikes available in Strasbourg so that less use would need to be made of the transport service.
Where is there controversy, however? There is controversy on the question of whether there should be more money in 2011 - EUR 1 500 - for assistants. I repeat that that is for assistants, not for Members of this House. That would total EUR 13.2 million. The majority in the Committee voted to place these increases for assistants in the reserve on the basis of the argument that this should be better evaluated and decided later in the year.
I would like to make the green position on this point clear, which is that we need to be sensitive to the general debt problems and my group therefore believes that we should waive this increase of EUR 1 500 for the next year. We should not change the Members' statute at this point - we should instead undertake to take fewer business flights for short trips so that we actually apply environmental protection - which we repeatedly call for politically - to our own behaviour and our own Parliament. It is therefore very pleasing that we have succeeded in improving our own environmental protection data, one example being a 12.9% drop in CO2 emissions in 2008. We have reduced energy consumption by 0.8%. We would like to see a job-funded pass for local public transport, in other words, we want to prove ourselves to be responsible from both a financial and an environmental policy point of view.
José Manuel Fernandes
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is advocating budgetary stringency, transparency and sustainability. We therefore welcome the work of the administration in specifying fixed and variable expenditure, as well as the fact that a medium-term strategy regarding buildings policy has been tabled. Nevertheless, we believe that these documents can be improved in the future, and we would remind you that we are advocating a long-term buildings strategy.
We are ambitious regarding budgetary stringency, so we want progress to be made towards a zero-based budget, in which each item of expenditure is supported by documentary evidence. To the same end, we also propose that progress be made in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of variable expenditure. We would argue that there is a potential saving and we therefore support - indeed we are ourselves suggesting this - reductions in some budgetary items.
Excellence in lawmaking is Parliament's principle goal. We all know that not having the appropriate legislation or having bad legislation always leads to high costs; costs which, in the final analysis, are always borne by the European public. To achieve this aspiration of excellence in lawmaking in the face of the new competences resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we support the possibility of recruiting new human resources; we want these to be of a high standard; indeed, we demand it.
I would also remind you that we are going to have 18 new Members and that these too must be in a position to properly exercise their mandate. The times we live in are very demanding and European institutions play an essential role; it is a crucial role, in which they must not fail, and they therefore need to have sufficient means at their disposal.
We are well aware that there can always be strong doses of populism and demagoguery surrounding budgetary issues, and we repudiate these. There are even those who insinuate that MEPs' allowances are increasing, which is not true. What we are seeking is for Parliament to have allowances sufficient for it to have the dignity that we all advocate, and achievement of the goal that the European public expects, indeed demands, of us: excellence in lawmaking.
Derek Vaughan
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, it is always controversial when you discuss your own budget, and we have seen that in our discussions on the amending budget and in our own budget for 2011. However, I am pleased that most of the issues have now been resolved for 2011 within the Committee on Budgets itself. Indeed, I believe there are now very few differences between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau, apart from maybe three or four issues. One, of course, is the 20% threshold. Another is the buildings reserve, another is the posts which have now been put into reserve and another is the second tranche of EUR 1 500 per Member per month for the assistants' allowance.
These two tranches of EUR 1 500 per Member are controversial and would be difficult at any time, but are, of course, even more controversial in difficult economic times. This is even though we all recognise that the Lisbon Treaty has given us more responsibilities. It is because of this that a compromise has been reached to put the funding for the second tranche of EUR 1 500 into a reserve and it will remain there until the full costings of this proposal are established.
I think the other controversial issue for us which is outstanding is the office-holders allowance. The compromise reached here was to reduce the figure allocated for office holders down from EUR 1.2 million to EUR 400 000 and, of course, documented evidence of receipts must be provided when any claims are made. I think that is an important principle and one we would all want to support. Colleagues themselves will decide whether these two compromises are acceptable to them or not. I believe the majority of the S&D Group will find those compromises acceptable to them.
One thing, however, has also become clear in our discussions on the 2011 budget, and that is if we are to fund extra responsibilities in the future because of the Lisbon Treaty, we must also find efficiency savings elsewhere. For the 2011 budget, some attempts at making these savings have been made. Indeed, the overall increase has come down from 6.5% to around 5.8%. That is welcome, but I believe we need to do much more in the future.
I hope that in the future, the Bureau will come forward with recommendations and proposals, not only about spending, but also about ways in which we can make efficiency savings in the future. I would hope those savings would include changes in the way we do things, rather than just making cuts.
I believe it is important in the future that if the Bureau does come forward - and I hope it will - with efficiency savings proposals, that it is discussed with Members at an early stage. This will give the European Parliament the chance to shape the budget, but also to shape our priorities and to identify savings ourselves, but in the meantime, we should continue to work to ensure that our budget for 2011 is acceptable to Members, to this Parliament and, of course, to the public as well.
Carl Haglund
Madam President, we have had an interesting debate on Parliament's own budget for this year and next year.
I would like to start by giving particular thanks to Mrs Trüpel, who has done a good job on the preparation of next year's budget. It is probably more balanced than was originally intended.
The Treaty of Lisbon brings with it new requirements of the European Parliament and, with that in mind, it is logical for Parliament to expect some increased costs, because there will be an increase in our activities.
At the same time, it is absolutely astonishing that we have been entirely incapable of reorganising our own activities in order to meet the new requirements. That is an area in which we need to improve.
In the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, we have been critical of the cost increases originally proposed by the Bureau which have, in fact, now been partly cut, as has been said. Nonetheless, I would like to say that the ALDE Group does not accept, and will not vote in favour of, a further EUR 1 500 per month increase in allowances for each Member so that they can employ further assistants. We also oppose the idea that the chairs of the committees should be given an entertainment allowance.
It is obvious that the two big political groups have now found a point of contact in this matter, but we in the ALDE Group will fight for our views in this Chamber. It is important that the European Parliament shows that we really are interested in the level of costs to which we give rise. I cannot really understand the logic that was presented here earlier according to which it is a matter not of cost increases, but rather of being able to perform our duties properly. That is not what it is about at all. In the final event, it is only about cost increases.
By extension, it is also good to remember that the greater the number of assistants employed in Parliament, the greater will be our requirements in terms of our buildings and it will become very expensive in the long term. We in the ALDE Group are highly critical of some of these proposals and will vote accordingly when the House votes.
Helga Trüpel
Madam President, I would like to start with the magic word 'balance' once again, which Mr Haglund has just mentioned. I actually believe that, as we now discuss the 2011 budget, we must take as our starting point the question 'How can we find a proper and responsible balance?'
Mr Fernandes spoke of popularism in relation to Parliament's considered idea of being very responsible and self-disciplined in the 2011 budget. I completely disagree with him in this regard. I do not believe that it is popularism for us to together come to the considered conclusion that, in the light of the many cutbacks that we are demanding of other countries, we too need to examine very closely how we in Parliament must act with self-discipline. On the contrary, I believe that to be precisely the political responsibility of the European Parliament in the current circumstances. In the cutbacks that are being demanded of Greece and public budgets in general, we must have the courage, on the one hand, to legitimise the increases that we do need in order to do our work responsibly and yet, at the same time, to find a limit where we say: under present conditions, we also require a certain delimitation, as that is simply a part of the political landscape. This must be signalled according to the maxim 'We have understood!' That is important from a political point of view, and I therefore once again call on all the groups to consider what signal we will be giving the public with the 2011 budget.
Lajos Bokros
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, in Romania, civil servants are facing a 25% cut in their salaries, in Spain, public sector employees will see 5% to 15% of their wages disappear, and in Portugal - not to mention Greece - governments are making huge efforts to save on human resources. In the UK, the new government has already indicated that there is a need for a major package of financial savings this year.
Does anybody in this Parliament think that now is the time for the European Parliament to spend more on anything - to increase spending, have more staff for groups, library, committees, IT staff and an additional EUR 1 500 in assistants' allowances? We are debating the second tranche of the EUR 1 500; I say that even the first is absolutely unnecessary. It should not be a question of putting the second into reserve; we should eliminate both because this is not the time to do this. We are all aware of increased competences, but more competences do not necessarily require more spending. It requires more efficient spending, more accountability and more responsibility.
I completely agree with Mrs Trüpel, who said that there are ways to make additional savings. We do not need a fleet of cars here in Strasbourg. We have free public transportation. I use the tram every day. Instead of using business class tickets, we can use economy class in order to make savings. I, for one, as a matter of principle, have never flown business class when coming here from Budapest. All in all, while the discussion between the Bureau and Committee on Budgets was very useful in this respect, I think that a tremendous amount of further opportunities exist where we can make savings.
Marta Andreasen
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, once again, I am appalled to see how the Members of this Parliament continue to demand budget increases while people in the Member countries are struggling to live through the present crisis. But today I will refer to the ethics of this House.
In the present situation, is it acceptable that, while they demand power to control national budgets, the European institutions want to increase their own administrative budgets, as is the case with this Parliament? Is it acceptable that the EU institutions go to the Court of Justice over the Council's decision to moderate the increase in salaries of EU civil servants? Is it ethically acceptable for Parliament to rush out its approval of the Council's 2008 accounts in exchange for the latter's approval of Parliament's budget increases?
Let me explain: the Budgetary Control Committee has voted unanimously against approving the Council's 2008 accounts due to a lack of transparency. Coincidentally, the Council has failed to approve budget increases for Parliament. I guess that we will see Parliament voting in favour of approving the Council's accounts this week, and shortly afterwards the Council will be approving extra budget for the Parliament. These votes, ladies and gentlemen of Europe, the ones for Parliament's budget and the Council's discharge, are representative of the ethics of the institutions that aim to govern all of us.
Angelika Werthmann
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon brought with it changes, including, and indeed specifically relating to, the importance of the European Parliament. I have already pointed out once that my 'Yes' to the amendment of the parliamentary budget is a conditional one. Of course, the European Parliament should strive for legislative excellence. Of course, strengthening Parliament's role means that it has more obligations, more responsibility and more work. That said, in times of crisis like those we are in at present - the worst economic crisis in 60 years - I would point out that, as MEPs, we, too, and indeed we, specifically, should exercise particular care with the money entrusted to us. The Council and the European Parliament are supposed to and must work together to a greater extent, and this cooperation requires a willingness to act as partners.
Ivaylo Kalfin
(BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mrs Trüpel and Mr Maňka, for their excellent work in preparing the decisions which we are discussing today. We must acknowledge that this was anything but an easy task, as witnessed by today's debate.
On the one hand, we must be paragons of thrift and efficiency when it comes to spending European taxpayers' money. On the other hand, however, we must give Parliament the opportunity to fulfil all its duties and responsibilities which these same taxpayers have entrusted to it through the Treaty of Lisbon.
The fact is that the new European Union treaty imposes the most changes and new duties actually on our institution. One of the most serious issues causing much debate was the extent to which the European Parliament is taking into account the tough economic situation in Europe and showing leadership in terms of restricting expenditure and increasing its effectiveness.
The parliamentary decisions which we are discussing today are relevant to the economic situation. A minimum 5.5% increase in expenditure allows us to increase the European Parliament's staff by taking on 18 new employees. We need the administration to provide specialist support for areas which have significantly increased, where the European Parliament's decisions are crucial.
We offer MEPs the opportunity to have more contact with their voters, to undergo specialist training in more areas and to fulfil their new duties, which were entrusted to them by the Treaty of Lisbon. We are paragons of thrift as we are accommodating all the new functions as part of an overspend of just 0.28% on the agreement reached many years ago so that the European Parliament's expenditure does not exceed 20% of the European budget's administrative costs.
At the same time, we must state very clearly that the old agreement needs to be renegotiated in future so that it reflects, to a large extent, the changes in the institutions' functions and, in particular, the increase in the role and, accordingly, the expectations of the European Parliament.
Fellow Members, we still have reserves available. In future, we must increase our efforts to make Parliament work more efficiently, for instance, by relying not on buildings but on new technologies, by setting an example in terms of institutional and environmental standards and by analysing closely the impact of every expense and not allowing the budget to grow automatically, as is usually the case with any bureaucracy. We must not forget that we are accountable to our voters, who are going through difficult times at the moment, for every action we take.
Alexander Alvaro
(DE) Madam President, in times of crisis, in particular, politicians must be able to separate their rational and emotional sides, especially when it comes to budgetary matters and money. I have the feeling that the Treaty of Lisbon and the associated budgetary issues are a little bit like the weather forecast - you never know exactly how things will look in the morning. The forecast says rain, so you take the umbrella, and in the end it maybe spits a little, but there is definitely no real rain.
It is the same with the Treaty of Lisbon: we do not know how Parliament's workload will be changed by the Treaty. I have to wonder how it was possible for Members to have worked in the committees and the presidiums in the past in such a way that there will be no change as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The discussion about the EUR 1 500 increase in the secretarial allowance is symbolic for the issue of whether we are able to slim down our structures, save funds and make our working processes more efficient. Taking these three points into account would be of greater benefit to us than ever increasingly talking about the area of funding. Above all, it is only over the next year that we will see what impact the Treaty of Lisbon has really had on our work.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) There is no doubt that the European Parliament, which has more responsibilities and a greater role to play following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, quite naturally must have greater financial resources to be able to fulfil this role. The previous speaker is right. We do not know how much, in practice, that role will increase, but we do know that it will increase. In relation to this, quite naturally, our voters' and taxpayers' expectations of us are greater, too. This, too, is why the request for an increase in funding, for example, for Members' assistants, is unquestionably justified both financially and politically.
We are aware that at the moment, there is a huge crisis in Greece and generally in the countries of southern Europe, which is obviously also a problem of a political nature, but when cutting costs, we must not amputate certain functions of the European Parliament. I am profoundly convinced that the budget of the European Parliament should be significantly increased.
Daniël van der Stoep
(NL) Madam President, Parliament's draft budget for 2011 is EUR 1.7 billion. That is equivalent to EUR 2.3 million per MEP per year, EUR 200 000 per month and a staggering EUR 6 400 per MEP per day; and there are 736 MEPs in this House.
Madam President, EUR 6 400 is a huge amount of money. I can think of a hundred things it would be better spent on than this puppetry. Most importantly, however, citizens themselves must be able to take such decisions. Let us shut up shop in Brussels, Luxembourg and, primarily, Strasbourg today. Let us simply clear everyone out of the buildings, lock the door, throw away the key and give that EUR 1.7 billion back to the citizens who have earned it with their own blood, sweat and tears.
Each Member of this House should have to get up and go to bed every day with the thought that he or she will cost, or has cost, the taxpayer EUR 6 400 that day. Each Member must also see it as his or her duty to bring that amount down every day, as everything that is spent on nonsense here is taxpayers' money that has been produced by citizens through enormously hard work.
That is what should happen, but it does not. In this House, more is always better. Via handshakes, like-knows-like, shadowy deals in back rooms, tens of millions are added to the budget. The elite decides, and the public coughs up. Everyone should think about this at night before going to sleep, and I would call on everyone to do so tonight: to ask him or herself, 'have I cost EUR 6 400?' If they do not do so, they should be deeply ashamed, as they are worth nothing as MEPs.
Ingeborg Gräßle
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would say to Mr van der Stoep: I am worth my money, and I am standing by that position. If you are not worth yours, then you have my sympathy. All I can say is that we are doing ourselves no favours if we create working conditions for ourselves in this House that effectively make it impossible for us to work. I support the increase in the secretarial allowance - indeed for both levels - and I believe that this is highly justifiable.
Anyone who works in this House needs staff. Those who do not want to work should not prevent those who want and have to work from doing so. No one will be forced to use the increase in the secretarial allowance - you can use it, you do not have to do so. If MEPs do not use the allowance, then all the better for the taxpayers, who will then get the money back. I, in turn, can only speak for myself when I say that I am worth the money and that the same applies to my staff. However, we must put under the microscope activities that were undertaken in the past on the basis of a surplus in this budget. We must examine whether we thus want to and are able to continue these activities. I am also thinking, in this regard, above all, about the web TV service. I think that we have to take action, that we cannot leave everything as it is.
Apart from that, we have undertaken many reforms with the Bureau and we should also allow these reforms to bite. The Committee on Budgetary Control will do everything in its power to point out where things are not working.
Geoffrey Van Orden
Madam President, across Europe, governments and public institutions are facing up to the need for cuts, but this Parliament continues to live in a fairytale world. I hear fine words about the need for savings and efficiency, but the budget of over EUR 1.7 billion in 2011 is an increase of nearly 6%. This is totally unacceptable. We should be talking about massive savings, not increases. There are many ways in which this could be done.
For a start, we should be cutting unnecessary waste and expenditure. This House should demand that Council end the Strasbourg circus and save annual costs of over EUR 200 million. A further EUR 50 million would be saved every year by closing the European Parliament offices in each of our countries. We must streamline the bureaucracy: the number of officials employed by Parliament has increased by 14% to 6 000 in just three years. Any other organisation in straitened times would meet new priorities with compensating reductions elsewhere. We seem to think that we live in a different world. We need to take the necessary steps to bring about real changes and real cuts in Parliament's budget.
Bart Staes
(NL) I should like to come back to the idea of twice adding EUR 1 500 per month to the secretarial assistance allowance. It is true that Lisbon gives us many additional tasks, so I shall certainly not be opposing the idea of more staff for the parliamentary committees given additional tasks by Lisbon, such as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Nor shall I be opposing more staff for the groups, to enable them to better support that kind of task, but let us be honest, ladies and gentlemen: it is crazy, and also incorrect, to give each individual MEP EUR 1 500 more this year and a further EUR 1 500 on top next year.
I myself have worked in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for 10 years, and I continue to do so. That committee has very many legislative tasks under the codecision, or ordinary legislative, procedure. I have always managed with three assistants, and I assume that those MEPs currently working or about to work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs can also manage with three assistants. Your suggestion, Mrs Gräßle - that extra staff should be given to those wanting to work but not to those not wanting to - is populism of the highest order.
Vladimír Maňka
I would like to thank everyone who expressed an opinion. I am pleased that you all want to perform your legislative work as well as possible, and to make the best possible use of resources. Each one of us has his or her own opinion as to where and how we might improve things. Today's debate bears witness to this. I would like to say to Mr Bokros that there is a way to achieve savings through objective methods. This way was blocked one year ago by Members of your political group, among others.
Since January, I have been the head of a regional authority in my own country. After taking up this post, the first step was an independent external study of all the processes in my institution. This audit will eliminate duplication and reduce administrative costs by more than 15%. If we want to analyse spare capacity and reorganise existing resources to the greatest possible extent, an objective and independent external study is the best solution.
Those who had the courage to take this step achieved the best use of resources and managed to reduce their administrative costs markedly. In the coming days, we will be debating and voting on the 2010 amending budget of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
These institutions are clearly expanding their activities, with greater powers and a greater workload. I would also like to make a request to the Council for us to be able to finalise these budgets as soon as possible, so that both institutions can carry out their responsibilities in a responsible and efficient manner in the new or expanded areas introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Helga Trüpel
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you have all heard how controversial the debate about this 2011 budget is. No wonder, either, given that, in fact, it concerns real increases and cuts but also - as always in politics - symbolic issues.
As rapporteur, I would like to put the following on the record. You have seen the full spectrum of viewpoints here, from Mrs Gräßle from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), which is very settled in favouring these increases - including the EUR 1 500 - in order to safeguard its ability to work, to other Members, who have said 'We do not need this' or 'We need to evaluate much more precisely how the increases can be justified and provide ourselves with an overview, including of the individual committees and working areas of this House'.
As rapporteur, I would like to point out that the majority of the Committee on Budgets decided to place the additional money in the reserve - it has thus not yet been agreed by the Committee on Budgets - and to demand a precise evaluation. All of that therefore still has to be done. We need to get this evaluation on the table, and then in the autumn we will once again have to very seriously get to grips with these results so that we will be able to further negotiate with the Council in October under the new budget procedure and also so that we can find a majority position internally here in Parliament. In the current state of affairs, it is important to point out that there is controversy, there are very different opinions and there is a majority opinion according to which we need to look at the figures very closely once again.
My thanks for your advice, and I hope that we all demonstrate prudence as we move forwards.
President
Thank you, Mrs Trüpel. However, this ends the joint debate on the budget. Thank you for your speeches. The debate is closed.
The vote on the report by Mr Maňka will take place tomorrow, and the vote on the report by Mrs Trüpel will take place today at 12.00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Georgios Stavrakakis
The amending budget is the outcome of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament has come up against new challenges and will need resources if it is to meet its new responsibilities and challenges with success. I should like to emphasise that European citizens want Parliament to perform its duties impeccably and, in order to safeguard this, it is important for its members, its committees and its political groups to have the necessary resources. Furthermore, we believe that financial discipline and spending cuts are needed now more than ever, and European citizens quite rightly expect them of us, which is why we have prepared a budget that guarantees financial austerity and transparency.
We have also insisted on the need for long-term policy planning for European Parliament buildings, in a bid to safeguard satisfactory financial support both now and in coming years. We are sure that these measures will help to put us in a position to address the concerns, expectations and demands of the citizens of Europe.
To close, I should like to congratulate Vladimir Maňka on his excellent report.