22 Amendments of Petri SARVAMAA related to 2022/2082(DEC)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls thatWelcomes that pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation once the Plenary calls for different rules or measures to be implemented by Parliament, such proposed rules or measures should bare discussed and voted on by the Bureau, pursuant to Rule 25 of and Annex V to the Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 166 of the Financial Regulation; is deeply disappointed, however, that each year very concrete demands adopted by Plenary in discharge resolutions are not reflected in the discussions of the Bureau meetings despite the fact; reminds, in light of Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure that the Bureau is responsible to take decisions on financial, organisational and administrative matters concerning Members; highlights, that bothe Bureau members and the Secretary-General are aware of the discharge resolutions and have the capacity to submit proposals under the aforementioned Rule 25; is disappointed that the Secretary-General's written replies to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control are often limited to quoting the current rules without any is composed of democratically elected Members of all political groups; notes, that the members of the Bureau participate in deliberations and vote on resolutions related to Parliament’s draft estimates and discharge procedures; highlights, that since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandedmicated discussion in the Bureau and thus, lacking a genuine effort or intention to review those rules in accordance with Parliament’s will; believes that this situation is detrimental to the exercise in March 2020 and until the gradual lifting of sanitary restrictions at the beginning of 2022, the Bureau`s deliberations were focused primarily on decisions aimed at protecting the integrity of dMemocratic scrutiny which is carried out via the discharge procedure and for which Parliament should be a role model for all Union institutions and bodiesbers and staff while ensuring business continuity and implementing practical solidarity measures vis-à-vis the three host Member States of the Parliament;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that the Bureau has been mandated by the Plenary to decide all administrative, staff and organisational matters concerning Members and is concerned that the decisions of the Bureau often fail to respect the will expressed by the Plenary in discharge resolutions; reiterates the importance of the discharge procedure as set in the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure and demands that resolutions affecting the functioning of Parliament be thoroughly taken into consideration and followed up in a legitimate, transparent manner; recommeminds that the Committeeagendas onf Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau and calls on the Secretary-General to always include a clear list of the Bureau discussions and votes when providing the replies to the discharge resolutionsreau meetings are published beforehand and are made available on Parliament's internet site and that all Bureau discussions and decisions, including the ones in camera, are minuted and, once approved by the Bureau, the minutes are also accessible on Parliament's internet site; recommends that the Committee on Budgetary Control should be systematically informed whenever a proposal arising from a discharge resolution is going to be discussed by the Bureau;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Praises the key role of Parliament’s medical services at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response and acknowledges the enormous workload involved, which included treatment, testing and vaccination of staff, providing psychological support and advising on mitigation measures; regrets the factwelcomes the statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations giving the right to a staff annual medical check-up; notes that the staff annual medical check-up washad to be cancelled in 2021 and recalls that is a statutory right laid down in Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulatio; highlights that the year of 2021 was a challenging year impacted enormously by the COVID-19 pandemic which required most of the extraordinary measures introduced in 2020 to be maintained and adapted to minimise the risk for Members and staff while ensuring that the Parliament remains able to continue its core activities and to fulfil its mandate as democratic representation of the EU citizens; welcomes the creation, in October 2021, of the Medical Preparedness and Crisis Management Unit (MPCMU) made up of staff from the medical services in Brussels and Luxembourg with the objective of enhancing Parliament’s response capacity for future crisis;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recalls that, according to Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee represents the interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution and maintains continuous contact with them; points out that decisions taken by Parliament’s governing bodies often have a significant impact on staff and thus, reiterates that it is essential for staff representatives to be heard when general matters affecting Parliament’s staff policy are discussed; reiterates furthermore its request to the Secretary-General to take the appropriate measures to implement this key approach, for instance setting up a mandatory consultation procedure with staff representatives during the preparation of the proposals for Bureau decisions on staff matters;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Reiterates its demand for APAs to receive the same subsistence allowance as the officials and other statutory staff for their missions to attend the part-sessions in Strasbourg; is of the opinion that the current situation, aggravated by the accumulated increase in prices over the last few years, is unacceptablechallenging as APAs have to travel to Strasbourg to carry out their work in exactly the same way as Parliament's officials and other statutory staff; fails to understand this discriminatory treatment regarding the missions to Strasbourg while expenses incurred by APAs in undertaking missions outside Parliament’s three places of work are reimbursed, mutatis mutandis, in accordance with the rules applicable to officials’ missions; highlights that aligning the daily subsistence allowance with that of statutory staff would also put an end to the discriminatory existence of three levels of allowances to choose from, which is maintained without any administrative or financial justification; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Bureau to modify its decision of 2 October 2017 with the aim of implementing such alignment;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. RegretNotes that the applicable rules currently prohibit APAs to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and committee missions; points out that the technical support that APAs provide during missions is of key importance to the participating Members, in particular when they are involved in the organisation or play a specific role; is concerned that this situation compels Members to resort to financing APAs’ travel with the general expenditure allowance and obliges APAs to use their annual leave, thus jeopardising their insurance coverage, which represents a serious reputational risk for Parliament; regrets that neither the Bureau norasks that the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents have followed up on the long-standing request to allow APAs, under certain conditions yet to be determinedand bearing in mind the logistical limits of missions, to accompany Members on official Parliament delegations and missions, as reiterated by several discharge resolutions; urges the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents to respond positively to this demand;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Welcomes the fact that the Bureau’s last revision of the rules for visitors’ groups introduced the possibility for Members to designate professionals to hold the financial responsibility, which has brought about a decrease of APAs as heads of visitors’ groups to 28%; reiterates that APAs should not be compelled to takehighlights that it is preferred when APAs are not designated as heads of groups as this level onf suchbstantial financial responsibility, which can amount to substantial sums of money in some cases; insists, might compromise the appropriate auditing procedures following the groups’ visits especially in the case when APAs have left the EP and are no longer MEPs’ staff but some of the audits might take place up to 3 years following the groups’ visit; asks therefore, to the Bureau that APAs beo consider eliminateding APAs from the list of permitted heads of groups, leaving only a member of the sponsored group or a professional, such as paying agents or travel agencies, to take up the role or to consider adjusting APAs liability especially in the cases when they are no longer EP’s employees;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Stresses that transparency, accountability, and integrity are essential ethics principles within the Union institutions and particularly Parliament as house of the European democracy; recalls that unethical behaviours must be prevented, persecuted and condemned for significantly damage the credibility and legitimacy of the Union and constitute a serious threat to democracy and public trust; recalls the Court’s conclusions and recommendations in its special report 13/2019 on the ethnical frameworks of Union institutions, as well as Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the Union institutions by setting up an independentUnion ethics body; ; supports the reinforcement of the existing high ethical standards for politicians and for the guidance on the implementation of ethical rules, while fully respecting the separation of powers between the institutions and the rule of law; underlines that creating additional bodies and structures within the EU institutional framework would only add an additional burden to the work of the EU as the anti- fraud players such as OLAF, EPPO, Europol and Eurojust are already tasked to monitor and protect the spending of the EU budget and prevent any possibilities for mismanagement of funds; notes the importance of strengthening the systems in place and to address any shortcomings; notes that the proper application of existing rules can bring significant improvements; highlights that a cooperation agreement between the EPPO and the EP with clear rules and procedures is necessary to further facilitate and maintain the protection EU’s financial interest; such agreement shall provide that the EP reports to the EPPO concerns regarding any criminal conduct in line with the EPPO regulation and the Financial Regulation; reminds that the Treaties of the European Union are the primary law and reside at the top of the hierarchy of norms; the Treaties establish the EU’s institutions and clearly define their competences and decision- making powers (Article 13 TEU); Parliament together with the Council are the co-legislators (Article 14(1) TEU); reminds that under the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme judicial body of the EU (Article 19 TEU); there can be no higher judicial decision-making authority above it; under no circumstances can secondary law contradict or amend primary law; reminds that, therefore, the establishment of an independent ethics body with the power to make binding decisions on the EU’s institutions and organs counter to the separation of powers laid down in the Treaties, would imperatively require a change of the Treaties; stresses that transparency cannot undermine integrity and data protection;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Calls for a thorough overhaul of Parliament’s ethical framework that integrates lessons learned and strengthens the current rules to ensure that there are stronger deterrents to address effectively current and future threats and interferences, whether they affect Members or staff; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero tolerance and heightened vigilance; calls in particular for a revision of thehighlights the need to reinforce trust in the European decision-making by strengthening transparency, ethics and conduct in the European Parliament; stresses that an abuse or misuse of EP’s Rules of Procedure and the Members’ Code of Conduct, as well as for an urgent upgrade of the current European Parliament’s Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, in ord should be immediately addressed in a thorough and systematic manner; recalls the crucial role played by Members in the European decision- making, while protecting the freedom of Members’ mandate, as elected representatives; stresses that illegal activities funded by paid lobbying, NGOs funded in an unclear manner or other interest representatives constitutes a profound attack on democracy and should be met with zero to ensurelerance and heightened vigilance; highlights, that it is essential that Members act without any undue influence from interest representatives by means of a strict regulation of paid activities during the mandate, gifts or travel invitations, future employment expectations, and of undue use of information or contacts;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 b (new)
Paragraph 62 b (new)
62b. Notes that the current guidelines for the 2021 interinstitutional agreement to register NGOs and stakeholders are insufficient; stresses the need for a thorough pre-check within the registration in the transparency register to disclose all funding sources; notes that funding from EU funds must be traceable from the direct recipient to the final beneficiary when funds are passed on in a chain; calls to revise the guidelines for the registration in the transparency register to disclose all incoming and outgoing funds, including the transfer of funds from one NGO and stakeholder to another;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
Paragraph 62 a (new)
62a. Calls for of a ban on friendship groups with third countries that would forbid the activities or meetings of any unofficial groupings of Members that might result in confusion with the official activities of the Parliament with third countries as required by Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure; recommends that third countries should interact with the Parliament through the already existing official Parliament delegations, other committees or through the Committee on Foreign Affairs as required;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Welcomes Parliament’s zero- tolerance policy on harassment and the awareness-raising campaigns carried out; is concernedobserves, however, that on 28 October 2022 only 245 sitting Members (36,3%) had completed the training on respect and dignity in the workplace; recalls that Parliament has requested on several occasions the implementation of mandatory anti-harassment training courses for all Members; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resoluuggests that the anti- harassment training is brought mandatory not only to Members, but also to staff; welcomes the orientation debate on anti-harassment policies carried out in the Bureau meeting of 21 November 2022 and requests that the Bureau expresses a final position on the topic; stresses the importance of early intervention, together with training and awareness-raising actions and notes the initiative taken by the administration to set up internal mediators as a step towards early conflict resolution; stresses that the Code of Appropriate Behaviour for Members of the European Parliament seeks to ensure that members behave towards everyone working in the European Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect and without prejudice or discrimination;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Notes that the ‘advisory committee on harassment and its prevention at the workplace’ is composed of three members designated by the Appointing Authority (including the chair), two Staff Committee members and one expert advisor from the medical service; notes that the ‘advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members’ is composed of three Quaestors (including the chair), the chair of the first committee, two APA committee members, one staff committee member (only for cases concerning a member of staff), and two expert advisors, namely from the legal and the medical services respectively; is concerned by the lack of independent experts on harassment issues in both committees, as well as the absence of the legal service in the first case; calls for a Secretary-General decision reviewing the composition of both advisory committees and stipulating mandatory training on harassment prevention and equal opportunities for all their members;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Notes that eight Members decided, on their own initiative, to observe elections in third countries where Parliament had decided not to send an election observation delegation or had not been invited; notes that in all eight cases the Members were in breach of the Implementing Provisions of the European Parliament’s Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group and that they could not and were not selected to participate in an official Election Observation delegation until the end of 2021; requests that MEPs involved in unofficial election observation missions should be sanctioned for the duration of the mandate;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Points out that the IDEA Lab is supposed to be at the disposal of Members but regreand requests that Members have never been informed in this regardwill be informed in this regard about innovations and tested solutions that will be rolled-out in the future and those that are not pursued any further and for what reasons; questions the rationale behind the selection of the providers and of some of the technical innovations to be tested and regrets that some of the innovations would be too expensive to scale despite their interest; is of the opinion that one of the priorities of the IDEA Lab should be an innovative architectural solution to make better use of the space occupied by the unused showers in the Members’ offices; calls on the Bureau working group on buildings and Parliament’s administration to ensure a greater transparency regarding the budget for the IDEA Lab and to regularly present to the Committee on Budgetary Control the list of innovative solutions, their cost and the feedback produced, as well as the potential saving if implemented;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Understands that the core business of the service cars is the transport of Members, including the journey between Brussels and Strasbourg; points out, however, the waste of resources resulting from the fact that on average 15% of the seats available in the service fleet were been occupied for that journey in 2021; reiterates its call on Parliament’s administration to widen the user group while making sure that Members’ seats are secured, i.e. establishing a reserve list and coherent deadlines to confirm the journey;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 a (new)
Subheading 25 a (new)
Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Notes, that the last revision of the Rules governing the reception of groups of visitors from 18 January 2021 does not reflect on possible force majeure circumstances when it comes to cancellations of visits; invites the Bureau to consider accepting national strike as a force majeure circumstance when cancelling an organised group visit, as it is often the case where national strike days are announced at a much later stage after tickets have been purchased and it is extremely onerous to cancel a group visit in the very last moment and be able to recover all the financial costs incurred whilst organising the visit;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 25 b (new)
Subheading 25 b (new)
JSIS
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Calls on the Bureau to ensure that the joint sickness insurance scheme (JSIS) shall provide a coherent and individual explanation for declining a reimbursement request; notes that the culture of declining a reimbursement request in pdf format without the possibility to challenge the decision in person imposes certain difficulties on the applicants applying for reimbursement; calls on the Bureau to consider introducing the possibility for local doctors in charge of a treatment of an applicant to talk to the responsible JSIS unit or expert group to explain the treatment and medical benefits; further expresses its wish to improve the user- friendliness of the application enabling a quicker and more direct follow-up of individual requests; requests that the relevant bodies within JSIS duly and regularly take into account recent medical developments and knowledge gains when updating the list of eligible treatments and drugs;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114
Paragraph 114
114. Recalls that in previous discharge resolutions Parliament requested a reform of the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA) to make the expenditure of this lump sum more transparent and accountable; noteswelcomes, that following the announcement atby the Bureau meeting of 7 MarchPresident on 4 April 2022 of, the setting up of a Bureau ad-hoc wWorking gGroup on the GEA, which is tasked with evaluating the opereneral Expenditure Allowance (GEA) was established and tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the Bureau decision of 2 July 2018; observes that the Bureau, at is meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendments to the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at inn the GEA on the basis of the experience gained during the ninth parliamentary term; highlights, that he ad-hoc Working Group was asked to take duly into account aspects of transparency, accountability and sound financial management of funds made available to Members, bearing in mind the principle of freedom and independence of the parliamentary mandate and the objective to avoid creasting transparency but believes that this reform does not meet the demands expressed in Parliaunnecessary administrative burdens for Members, their offices and Parliament’s services; welcomes that on the basis of proposals submitted by the ad-hoc Working Group, the Bureau, at its meeting of 17 October 2022, adopted a set of amendment’s resolution of 26 March 2019 on the 2017 discharge and in subsequent resolutionsto the IMMS clarifying the rules applicable to the entitlement and use of the GEA and measures aimed at increasing transparency;