Budget guidelines: 2011, Sections I, II and IV to IX European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the guidelines for the 2011 budget procedure, Section I – European Parliament, Section II – Council, Section IV – Court of Justice, Section V – Court of Auditors, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, Section VIII – European Ombudsman, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (2010/2003(BUD))
Date: 2010-03-25
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union, European Committee of the Regions, European Court of Auditors, European Data Protection Supervisor, European Economic and Social Committee, European Ombudsman, European Parliament, budget








CE2011004EN.01002001.xml










7.1.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 4/20





Thursday 25 March 2010Budget guidelines: 2011, Sections I, II and IV to IX
P7_TA(2010)0087
European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the guidelines for the 2011 budget procedure, Section I – European Parliament, Section II – Council, Section IV – Court of Justice, Section V – Court of Auditors, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, Section VIII – European Ombudsman, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (2010/2003(BUD))
2011/C 4 E/04

The European Parliament,
having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,
having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1),
having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (2),
having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3),
having regard to the sixth report by the Secretaries-General of the institutions on trends in heading 5 of the financial perspective, as revised in autumn 2009,
having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2008, together with the institutions’ replies (4),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0036/2010),






A.


whereas, at this stage of the annual procedure, the European Parliament is awaiting the other institutions’ estimates and its own Bureau’s proposals for the 2011 budget,










B.


whereas it is useful to continue the pilot exercise on enhanced cooperation and relations between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets for a third year, throughout the 2011 budget procedure,










C.


whereas the ceiling for heading 5 in 2011 is EUR 8 415 000 000 (representing an increase of EUR 327 000 000, or 4 %, compared with 2010, including 2 % for inflation),










D.


whereas the European Parliament’s budget for 2010 amounts to EUR 1 607 363 235, representing 19,87 % of heading 5 for this year before the revision of the 2007-2013 MFF (which lowered the ceiling of heading 5 by EUR 126 000 000 in order to contribute to the financing of the European Economic Recovery Plan), and 20,19 % after that revision,










E.


whereas account needs to be taken of how each institution’s share of heading 5 expenditure has evolved, and of the various reasons for significant modifications, such as the entry into force of different treaties (increasing the number of Members and/or extending the different institutions’ tasks and competences), enlargement and other decisions entailing significant expenditure increases not foreseen at the time the financial framework was adopted,










F.


whereas the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will, to varying degrees, have financial implications for all the institutions, the overall magnitude of which is still unknown,










G.


whereas it is essential to monitor the situation with regard to heading 5 carefully throughout the implementation of the 2010 budget and in the run-up to the adoption of the 2011 budget,










H.


whereas particular account should be taken of the financial impact on pension systems, age-related trends and retirement, recruitment and other areas related to statutory provisions, and of the need to ensure long-term sustainability,






General framework








1.


Points out that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, notably the single budget reading by each of the two arms of the budgetary authority, followed by a conciliation meeting with a view to arriving at a final budget, will require even closer cooperation and dialogue among all the institutions throughout the whole procedure, including the presentation of realistic estimates in due time;










2.


Points out that the circumstances under which the 2010 and 2011 budgets will be adopted are quite exceptional and challenging, since, on the one hand, successful implementation of the Lisbon Treaty is a major priority that will also be challenging financially, while, on the other hand, the effects of the financial crisis are still very present in many Member States, resulting in a political dilemma at EU level; recalls, in this context, that the EU budget represents less than 2,5 % of total EU public expenditure; notes, furthermore, that heading 5 of the EU budget consequently corresponds to 0,14 % of EU-wide public spending;










3.


Underlines the difficult situation with respect to the heading 5 expenditure ceiling for 2011, and is aware that the institutions may encounter problems in reconciling the financing of all needs with their desire to maintain budgetary discipline and self-restraint in order to comply with the multiannual financial framework; notes that a number of administrative areas are financed outside heading 5; requests that all administrative expenditure be included in that heading, and that the ceiling be revised accordingly;










4.


Insists, therefore, that developments be monitored closely before final decisions are taken; reiterates its belief that priorities will have to be set and that core activities should be prioritised;










5.


Reiterates its conviction that interinstitutional cooperation is essential in order to exchange best practices and explore further the scope for improving effectiveness and efficiency and, where possible and appropriate, identifying savings and sharing resources better; believes that useful gains could also be made by extending this concept to other areas which have not so far been considered in this context, such as EMAS, non-discrimination policies and teleworking; suggests that possibilities for using open software with sufficient safety guarantees be explored further, with clearly defined feasibility criteria and taking into account both direct and indirect costs and benefits; points out that efforts should continue in areas already under consideration, such as translation capacity and recruitment (EPSO), on the basis of actual or justifiable needs;










6.


Reiterates the importance of enhancing interinstitutional cooperation in the field of building policy; calls on the other EU institutions likewise to develop medium- and long-term buildings strategies that include the objectives set out in this resolution; stresses the need to receive in good time the information necessary for decision-making under the procedure laid down in Article 179 of the Financial Regulation, which ‘should include needs assessments and cost benefit analyses for the various alternatives, outlining the options to rent or buy, as well as transparent information concerning the alternative financing possibilities, the long-term financial consequences, and compatibility with the MFF’ (Annex 2 to EP resolution of 17 December 2009 on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 as modified by the Council) (5); takes the view that, in this context, cooperation with other institutions in working towards the harmonisation of such information in order to allow a comparison of building space and costs should be considered a key issue; points to the need for a specific report and possible recommendations concerning unnecessarily high maintenance, renovation and purchase costs;










7.


Points out that, with regard to the staff salaries adjustment and the pending court case, the additional cost for all the institutions may be estimated at some EUR 135 million (for the period from July 2009 to 31 December 2010) if the Court were to rule in the Commission’s favour; notes that this ruling is expected in 2010, but does not exclude the possibility that it could be delayed until 2011;






European Parliament








8.


Stresses the fundamental challenge of managing a number of uncertainties – as indicated below – in relation to the 2011 budget, which will make precise forecasts and budgeting extremely difficult until the very late stages of the procedure, by which time the situation will have become clearer; calls on relevant EP bodies and the administration to make available, in due time, a set of basic scenarios able to facilitate the taking of final political decisions by affording a better understanding of the corresponding financial consequences;










9.


Recalls that the purpose of the amending letter presented to the Committee on Budgets by the Bureau in September is to take into account needs unforeseen at the time the estimates were drawn up, and stresses that this should not be seen as an opportunity to review previously agreed estimates; expects the Bureau to submit realistic requests when presenting the estimates; is prepared to examine the Bureau’s proposals on a wholly needs-based and prudent basis in order to ensure the appropriate and efficient functioning of the institution;










10.


Emphasises that legislative excellence is Parliament’s priority, and highlights the need to provide the institution with the necessary means to achieve it;










11.


Stresses the need for a fully integrated knowledge management system; recalls the need to organise a presentation to the Committee on Budgets on the multitude of information sources/systems available to Members, and to receive the requested information concerning the state of play of the ‘knowledge management system’, as agreed during the conciliation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets of 15 September 2009; is of the opinion that such a system should be made easily accessible via the internet; underlines the need to consider how this information should be made available to European citizens;










12.


Would welcome an analysis of Parliament’s web TV channel, Europarl TV; requests, in particular, information about its viewing figures and viewers’ geographical distribution and age range, in order to evaluate whether this tool has fulfilled its aims in terms of dissemination and the quality and quantity of information transmitted;










13.


Considers that measures to make the Lisbon Treaty work effectively are a crucial priority for the 2011 budget, and that this will necessitate the best possible management of available resources in order to make a success of the exercise;










14.


Points out that additional measures in this regard should nevertheless be assessed within the overall budget and the wider framework of the financial perspective; is of the opinion that an analysis of the institutions’ respective shares over time, including any significant developments that may have justified changing those shares, might be helpful;










15.


Points out that, since 2006, Parliament has had to include expenditure not foreseen in its self-imposed 1988 declaration, such as the Statute for Members and direct and indirect expenditure related to its new role following the Lisbon Treaty; highlights the need for an open and in-depth discussion on the current, self-imposed 20 % threshold, which applies to the level of the European Parliament budget; takes the view that the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets should work together to re-assess this limit before opening an interinstitutional dialogue on the issue; takes the view that, on the basis of the original MFF references negotiated in 2006 and in force since 2007, its expenditure should be established around the traditional 20 % limit, taking into account the needs of the other institutions and the available margin;










16.


Cannot stress enough the fundamental principle that all Members should enjoy equal access to comprehensive, high-quality services allowing them to work and express themselves and to receive documents in their native language, in order to be able to act on behalf of their voters in the best way possible;










17.


Awaits a reply from the competent bodies as to how the concept of a zero-based budget policy, which also distinguishes between fixed and variable costs, can be applied in the context of the EP budget procedure; calls for the Bureau to submit annual estimates of these fixed costs for the years corresponding to the MFF;










18.


Points out that the ‘salary effect’ for Parliament would amount to some EUR 14 million in the event of a ruling in the Commission’s favour; cannot be sure, at this stage, whether this would affect the 2010 or 2011 budget;










19.


Calls for an evaluation of the use of secretarial assistance allowances and an assessment of the total cost of the increase currently awaiting approval from both arms of the budgetary authority, prior to considering any possible further increase in the future; recalls that wider cost implications should always be assessed in relation to new measures introduced, for example when deciding on schemes for staff and accredited parliamentary assistants for both 2010 and 2011; especially underlines that, if additional assistants were to be recruited in Brussels, this would have an impact on the situation as regards office space, building maintenance and security, IT equipment, human resources for dealing with administrative tasks, and general facilities; considers that the presentation in March of the medium-term buildings strategy for its three places of work is crucial; insists on the need for long-term planning of its buildings policy in order to ensure the sustainability of the budget;










20.


Calls for the development of a medium- and long-term buildings strategy that includes the following objectives: establishment of guidelines for the planning and development of buildings; effective use of existing office and other space; an accurate needs assessment and the provision of proper working conditions for Parliament’s staff and MEPs; an effective strategy for building upkeep, maintenance and renovation, so as to prevent any recurrence of incidents such as the one at Parliament in Strasbourg in 2008 or problems in relation to asbestos; a rigorous review of liability issues, including the process of determining liability, and the pursuit of claims for compensation in respect of damage for which third parties are liable, as well as strict and transparent adherence to procurement procedures; calls, too, for the medium- and long-term buildings strategy to be geared to sustainability, and for factors such as environmental friendliness, energy efficiency and health to be taken into account; insists, moreover, that mobility-related aspects, especially with regard to access for people with motor or sensory disabilities, should also be included in the objectives; points out once again that the Committee on Budgets sees the acquisition of buildings as taking priority over expensive rental or leasing arrangements;










21.


Recalls that the Bureau, in its draft estimates for Amending Budget 1/2010, proposed an additional 70 members of staff for the committee secretariats; underlines that these staff will be divided among three groups according to the expected increase in their workload for legislative activities following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; considers that this breakdown should be subject to a mid-term assessment by July 2011, in order to clarify whether those services allocated more staff have been affected in real terms by the predicted increase in workload;










22.


Stresses that financial statements (fiches financières) and similar types of cost analysis are of the utmost importance for decision-making within Parliament; insists that these should be used systematically and should identify recurrent and one-off costs directly linked to the measure in question and also indicate whether there may be any financial impact on other items of expenditure;










23.


Takes the view that follow-up and analysis are important on a number of fronts with clear budgetary links, such as the restructuring of directorates-general, efficient human resources management and a professional staff policy, a cost- and energy-efficient buildings policy in terms of location, non-discrimination, EMAS, public procurement and action taken in response to budget discharge recommendations; emphasises the need for continuous follow-up and analysis of Parliament’s budget implementation in general; recalls, in this context, the negative media coverage resulting from subsidies being given to relatives of Parliament staff members, and calls for the Secretariat to scrutinise in advance any subsidising of event-type activities and bring it to the attention of the committee responsible;










24.


Takes note of the audit already carried out for DG INLO and the resulting restructuring of the directorate-general; believes that the results of this audit could serve as a basis for taking further steps, such as periodic and systematic audits by certified national bodies in order to check the methodology for maintenance policy and for ensuring the safety of people and equipment in the buildings;










25.


Underlines the need to receive a complete financial statement concerning the House of European History once the architects’ competition has been completed, as otherwise there will be no possibility of an in-depth assessment of the long-term costs in terms of Parliament’s buildings strategy and budget;










26.


Points out that the necessary preparations should be made in readiness to accommodate Croatian observers with a view to possible EU enlargement;






Other institutions








27.


Calls for realistic and cost-based budget requests, which take full account of the need to manage scarce resources in an optimal way and must be presented in good time; would welcome a budgetary analysis of how the Lisbon Treaty may affect each institution in 2010/2011 and how, if applicable, any additional needs for which requests may be made are to be justified;










28.


Takes the view that it may be advisable to request information about, and to compare, the other institutions’ systems for various types of remuneration, allowances and travel costs; points out that transparency and democratic accountability are obviously crucial;










29.


Wishes to follow up on last year’s priority of better sharing of the available resources among all the institutions, including the concrete measures taken in the area of translation, and considers that the area of interpretation could also be looked at once again in this context;










30.


Invites its rapporteur for 2010 to carry out individual visits to the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in order to hear them before the estimates stage and to report back to its Committee on Budgets;




*
* *






31.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor.






(1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(4)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2009, p. 1.

(5)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0115.